Have you looked the the food commodity prices lately? Even with the large gains seen today, the prices are still below the cost of production. If land for food was as scarce as you claim, should that food not be worth more than it costs to produce?
Even if you feel GM crops are safe, there is still the issue of intellectual property. It is frightening how much control Monsanto has over the food supply
No, it's not sterile. Farmers aren't idiots and they refused to buy sterile crops.
Well, technically, Monsanto does not allow farmers to buy GM seed at all. Seed is essentially leased and final product must be sold after harvest. Attempts to use the seed outside of the terms of the contract signed with Monsanto will lead to finding yourself in court.
Sorry, what I meant to say is: Who cares what the signal strength indicator says? Obviously a stronger signal is preferable, but knowing that it is stronger or weaker does not help much. It is not like I am able to explicitly select a tower with stronger reception.
Who cares about signal strength anyway? As long as the phone is providing the desired service without interruption or significant performance losses, I don't care if it says one bar or five.
Why isn't the Android tablet here now? The Apple Tablet was already being talked about in 2004, if not before. The Apple Tablet was unofficially announced in 2007. It is not like it was a huge surprise. Android could have easily beaten Apple to the punch on this one, and yet, we still have to wait.
Hey, I'd love to. Could you send me an computer that I can install the development package on? And an iPhone to test? And waive the $100/year App Store fee?
Insignificant business expenses. Surely your app ideas are good enough to recoup the costs and then some?
Okay, perhaps my wording was poor. I was not suggesting that the iPhone executes its apps in virtual machine, just that the build process for iPhone development uses the LLVM, to note that it is not some esoteric project. That, and that C does not have to be compiled straight to hardware instructions.
Capable, but not allowed as per License Agreement.
The web has no license agreement. Apple has no control over HTML5 apps and they have publicly stated that they have no intention of enforcing restrictions there. I am not sure why you keep coming back to this point. We already agree that App Store distribution has restrictions.
HTML5 isn't close to being a computing platform
HTML5 gives developers access to virtually everything that native code does. I personally believe that Cocoa Touch provides a much nicer development environment, but HTML5 isn't that horrible.
Appstore isn't even a platform, it's the only way to install any native code on the iPhone as a platform.
I could have said applications written in Objective-C, C, or C++ using Apple supplied frameworks distributed through the App Store, but I think it was pretty obvious what I meant. Even the label HTML5 encompasses many standards, but everyone knows what it means within the context of this discussion.
They already made a tool, but Steve Jobs stopped anybody from using it. Where have you been hiding these last months?
The point is that they gave up without a fight. Adobe doesn't care about Flash or users of Flash. They only care about an easy buck. As I said, there is no technical or legal reason why they cannot bring Flash to the iPhone, even with Apple's App Store restrictions.
The Demo you linked is pretty neat, but like all the other examples just shows that it's still completely inadequate.
Developers are only limited by their imagination. Maybe Pie Guy isn't the greatest app ever written, but I can point you to apps in the App Store that are much worse. I am still waiting to hear what kind of game you think is impossible in HTML5.
you're talking about hypothetical games that would be possible when somebody figures out how to make these hypothetical environments and someone comes along and makes the hypothetical tools to finally replace Flash.
This whole discussion began because I pointed out that the iPhone is more than capable of playing Flash. There is no restriction to playing Flash content. I even showed someone (not Adobe) who has provided a working Flash implementation. Why do you feel you have to give up the Flash development environment?
It's unbelievable how you're trying to spin Apple's anti-competitive restrictions into some sort of noble promotion of open platforms.
I have spun nothing. Apple has two platforms on the iPhone. Their open one (HTML5) and their closed one (App Store). That is fact. I don't care whether you like the App Store restrictions or not, the fact remains that there is nothing stopping Adobe from bringing Flash to the iPhone except themselves.
News to me. How?
For an example, visit http://mrgan.com/pieguy/ with your iOS device. Follow the instructions. Easy.
Again, you are free to use their HTML5 platform however you wish, without restriction. Your apps will even run without modification on any mobile device that uses WebKit or compatible engine (which is almost all of them).
On the iPhone, iPod touch, and the iPad, HTML5 applications are installable to the springboard and will load without a network connection. They appear to the end user just like a native app, but without the need for App Store access.
Google ported Quake 2 to HTML5. That seems like more than just basic graphics to me. Just exactly what kind of games are not possible using Apple's HTML5 platform?
You can interpret anything you wish using their open platform (HTML5). Only App Store apps are subject to the rules in which you speak. Given that Flash's domain is the web, the App Store is not really of concern anyway.
It is not emulating a Flash player, it is a Flash player. It illustrates that there is nothing stopping Adobe from bringing Flash to the iPhone except themselves.
Granted, it is not a Class-based OO language, it is a Prototype-based OO language. A different approach to OO, sure, but that does not exclude it from being an OO language.
HTML defines the document structure, not the layout or look. Standards compliant browsers have always been free to layout the HTML as they see fit. Lynx, for example, is standards compliant, but looks nothing like Firefox or Chrome.
CSS is a slightly different animal. It does make declarations about how things should look. If someone claims CSS support, the standard should be followed as closely as possible.
With that said, keep in mind that it was only a few years ago that print designers were, generally speaking, the ones who were hired to design websites. They came from a background where pixel perfect perfection was a requirement. There has been a shift in the last couple of years to designers who come from a web/technology background. They understand natural degradation and they realize that accessibility is much more important than visual perfection across every single browser in existence. They understand that it doesn't matter if the website looks horrible in IE6, so long as the information is still accessible. Something a print-background designer would never stand for.
The web is still a relatively new medium. There is much trial and error happening to tune the experience. Standards compliance was important during the days where we had one-size-fits-all browsers. We are now at the point where people use many different niche browsers, Safari Reader for example, to browse the web. This puts less emphasis on the design of the website itself, and gives the end user control over how the website should be best displayed.
You don't even have to look the the future: I am the author of an alternative browser for the iPhone that formats pages for easy reading on the small screen.
I was recently contacted by a website owner informing me that my browser would be blocked from accessing their website because it does not display web pages in exactly the way they had intended.
What is the point in using a format (HTML) that is designed to be interpreted in many different ways, depending on who is reading it, if you need exact control over your content? There are better tools for that job.
Well, what, exactly, is wrong with Javascript as a language? Like every other language, I do not believe it is the right tool for all jobs, but it is fine for some jobs.
There is nothing wrong with Javascript per se. Look at the work the Cappuccino guys are doing, for example. The problem is the browser: Why do we think deploying applications on HTML/CSS is a good idea?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you looked the the food commodity prices lately? Even with the large gains seen today, the prices are still below the cost of production. If land for food was as scarce as you claim, should that food not be worth more than it costs to produce?
Even if you feel GM crops are safe, there is still the issue of intellectual property. It is frightening how much control Monsanto has over the food supply
Well, technically, Monsanto does not allow farmers to buy GM seed at all. Seed is essentially leased and final product must be sold after harvest. Attempts to use the seed outside of the terms of the contract signed with Monsanto will lead to finding yourself in court.
Software applications have been called apps for as long as I can remember. Certainly years before the iPhone was released to the public.
Sorry, what I meant to say is: Who cares what the signal strength indicator says? Obviously a stronger signal is preferable, but knowing that it is stronger or weaker does not help much. It is not like I am able to explicitly select a tower with stronger reception.
Who cares about signal strength anyway? As long as the phone is providing the desired service without interruption or significant performance losses, I don't care if it says one bar or five.
Why isn't the Android tablet here now? The Apple Tablet was already being talked about in 2004, if not before. The Apple Tablet was unofficially announced in 2007. It is not like it was a huge surprise. Android could have easily beaten Apple to the punch on this one, and yet, we still have to wait.
Insignificant business expenses. Surely your app ideas are good enough to recoup the costs and then some?
Hence the "Stay tuned" comment from a recent Jobs email.
Okay, perhaps my wording was poor. I was not suggesting that the iPhone executes its apps in virtual machine, just that the build process for iPhone development uses the LLVM, to note that it is not some esoteric project. That, and that C does not have to be compiled straight to hardware instructions.
iPhone apps are compiled using LLVM, which provides its own virtual machine, not unlike the JVM and CLR. Does that make C a high level language?
The web has no license agreement. Apple has no control over HTML5 apps and they have publicly stated that they have no intention of enforcing restrictions there. I am not sure why you keep coming back to this point. We already agree that App Store distribution has restrictions.
HTML5 gives developers access to virtually everything that native code does. I personally believe that Cocoa Touch provides a much nicer development environment, but HTML5 isn't that horrible.
I could have said applications written in Objective-C, C, or C++ using Apple supplied frameworks distributed through the App Store, but I think it was pretty obvious what I meant. Even the label HTML5 encompasses many standards, but everyone knows what it means within the context of this discussion.
The point is that they gave up without a fight. Adobe doesn't care about Flash or users of Flash. They only care about an easy buck. As I said, there is no technical or legal reason why they cannot bring Flash to the iPhone, even with Apple's App Store restrictions.
Developers are only limited by their imagination. Maybe Pie Guy isn't the greatest app ever written, but I can point you to apps in the App Store that are much worse. I am still waiting to hear what kind of game you think is impossible in HTML5.
This whole discussion began because I pointed out that the iPhone is more than capable of playing Flash. There is no restriction to playing Flash content. I even showed someone (not Adobe) who has provided a working Flash implementation. Why do you feel you have to give up the Flash development environment?
I have spun nothing. Apple has two platforms on the iPhone. Their open one (HTML5) and their closed one (App Store). That is fact. I don't care whether you like the App Store restrictions or not, the fact remains that there is nothing stopping Adobe from bringing Flash to the iPhone except themselves.
For an example, visit http://mrgan.com/pieguy/ with your iOS device. Follow the instructions. Easy.
Again, you are free to use their HTML5 platform however you wish, without restriction. Your apps will even run without modification on any mobile device that uses WebKit or compatible engine (which is almost all of them).
On the iPhone, iPod touch, and the iPad, HTML5 applications are installable to the springboard and will load without a network connection. They appear to the end user just like a native app, but without the need for App Store access.
Google ported Quake 2 to HTML5. That seems like more than just basic graphics to me. Just exactly what kind of games are not possible using Apple's HTML5 platform?
You can interpret anything you wish using their open platform (HTML5). Only App Store apps are subject to the rules in which you speak. Given that Flash's domain is the web, the App Store is not really of concern anyway.
It is not emulating a Flash player, it is a Flash player. It illustrates that there is nothing stopping Adobe from bringing Flash to the iPhone except themselves.
http://smokescreen.us/
Apple says Flash is welcome... as long as it is implemented in HTML5. And so that is what people did. Everyone except for Adobe themselves.
Really goes to show that Adobe does not stand behind their platform. They are only in it to milk their existing codebase.
If four different email views are critical to your operation, it sounds to me like your IT staff are the ones bringing in the money.
You're right, I only showed the simplest case. If you would like to learn more about why prototype languages are OO languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming
Also, if you really want class-based OO in Javascript, there is always Objective-J, which is fully supported by browsers.
Javascript most certainly is an OO language.
Granted, it is not a Class-based OO language, it is a Prototype-based OO language. A different approach to OO, sure, but that does not exclude it from being an OO language.
HTML defines the document structure, not the layout or look. Standards compliant browsers have always been free to layout the HTML as they see fit. Lynx, for example, is standards compliant, but looks nothing like Firefox or Chrome.
CSS is a slightly different animal. It does make declarations about how things should look. If someone claims CSS support, the standard should be followed as closely as possible.
With that said, keep in mind that it was only a few years ago that print designers were, generally speaking, the ones who were hired to design websites. They came from a background where pixel perfect perfection was a requirement. There has been a shift in the last couple of years to designers who come from a web/technology background. They understand natural degradation and they realize that accessibility is much more important than visual perfection across every single browser in existence. They understand that it doesn't matter if the website looks horrible in IE6, so long as the information is still accessible. Something a print-background designer would never stand for.
The web is still a relatively new medium. There is much trial and error happening to tune the experience. Standards compliance was important during the days where we had one-size-fits-all browsers. We are now at the point where people use many different niche browsers, Safari Reader for example, to browse the web. This puts less emphasis on the design of the website itself, and gives the end user control over how the website should be best displayed.
You don't even have to look the the future: I am the author of an alternative browser for the iPhone that formats pages for easy reading on the small screen.
I was recently contacted by a website owner informing me that my browser would be blocked from accessing their website because it does not display web pages in exactly the way they had intended.
What is the point in using a format (HTML) that is designed to be interpreted in many different ways, depending on who is reading it, if you need exact control over your content? There are better tools for that job.
Well, what, exactly, is wrong with Javascript as a language? Like every other language, I do not believe it is the right tool for all jobs, but it is fine for some jobs.
There is nothing wrong with Javascript per se. Look at the work the Cappuccino guys are doing, for example. The problem is the browser: Why do we think deploying applications on HTML/CSS is a good idea?