Why doesn't Adobe just get really tough and drop all production of the Creative Suite for Macintosh? I bet that would get Steve's attention PDQ.
And watch Apple come out with their own competing product and lose a giant chunk of their user base? Apple does software very well. Look what happened to Adobe Premiere in the face of Final Cut. Look what happened to ProTools in the face of Logic. Apple has a knack for making professional creative tools. They're much better at it than Adobe and they also build the OS.
If Adobe cut support for Apple then they'd be out of business in two years.
I don't think this is the type of freedom our founding father's had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the type of freedom they had in mind would be Apple having the freedom to not support Flash on their device and consumers having the freedom to not buy an Apple product if this design decision is not to their liking. It's not like Apple is locking out Adobe to push their own proprietary standard, there is no anti-trust issue here.
Adobe is the next Sun. They're going to keep faltering and faltering until they're bought out by some giant. Open source and open standards are going to kill them. Eventually Gimp will work well enough to replace Photoshop, Flash will be dead, an open source WYSIWYG will replace InDesign/Dreamweaver, and this trend will continue with all their products. I think the folks at Adobe realize the impact that open source will have. They know that keeping the web running on Flash is their only hope to survive as a company.
Adobe is like if Microsoft only had Office and IE. Look at what OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, and Google Docs are doing. Software as a product is a failing business model, software as a service is the future. IBM and Google know this, that's why they're so ahead of the curve.
I know nothing about climate so I figured I'd throw this out there for someone to answer. Wouldn't this just cause more rainfall? I mean, I know they love the rain in Washington and all, but damn.
Look dude, no one's going to put Bill Gate's name in the news for spending a couple grand on some practical solution that requires no new technology. He has to spend at least a few hundred K for that type of press. Take your pragmatism somewhere else.
when they are at their best they are incompetent boobs, and at worst corrupted tyrannical assholes
Obama claims that people need to get more involved with the political process, starting with being better informed. The federal government wouldn't be full of incompetent boobs if incompetent boobs like yourself would stop making an enemy of the state and start holding it accountable by being politically active in ways that extend beyond bitching.
When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us. - Barack Obama
"According to Obama, 'information becomes a distraction' when it comes to iPads, the Xbox, etc. (All items he admits not knowing how to use.) He's basically saying we are getting too much information too quickly, and from 'unreliable sources.'
More reliable sources include politicians??? I'd much rather learn from a fictional X-Box game. It's much more likely to be based on the truth.
It should be illegal for any politician to pass laws about things he has no fucking idea about. If he hasn't used that class of gadget he should just shut his fucking mouth. I had high hopes for your president, but I have to say they're in ruins.
OH NO! OBAMA'S NOT A GEEK! Maybe it should be illegal for a politician to pass a law he knows nothing about, but since this has nothing to do with passing a law, how is that relevant?
Do you even read the entire (misconstrued) summary, let alone the article, or did you just find a phrase that you disagreed with and ranted? You'd rather "learn from a fictional X-Box game" than from Obama, who used to teach at Harvard. Way to prove the man's point.
If I had any mod points I'd bump you up. The parent does exactly what Obama complained about: he takes a politically neutral subject and contorts it in such a way that "information overload" all of a sudden becomes "liberal media conspiracy." Gotta love how he insinuated that the evil liberal media was in cahoots with the terrorists. He really exposed himself with "Taliban-type attack." He probably meant Al-Qaida, but they're all brown, so what's it matter?
Gotta love how he claims that you can use statistics to lie and spread misinformation. You don't have to use statistics. Accusing the media of conspiracy for not covering certain stories more in depth is so logically absurd that he must be intending on spreading misinformation himself. There's a much easier explanation: incompetence. But not on the media's part, on the part of the reader base. People care more about stories about Pandas having sex than they do about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict so the media invests more time and money covering Panda stories. The BBC, which tends to support Obama more than most American media outlets, actually does cover stories such as Oslo more in depth rather than just gloss over them. This seems to indicate that the ineptitude of the American media probably has more to do with our culture than some conspiracy between Obama, terrorists, and Ted Turner.
The fact of the matter is that if you get your daily news from Sarah Palin or Ariana Huffington's blog, you're not getting reliable information. The internet is full of unreliable information from all angles of the political spectrum, so it's doubtful that Obama was seeking to silence political opposition with these comments.
Yes, but would the prosecutors and law enforcement done anything if it was YOUR e-mail? I doubt it.
Justice tends to be biased in favor of those with money and power. Just look at Ben Roethlesburger. He raped a girl and they didn't even take it to court.
Yes. If only I had your insight, I would have followed your lead and not read the press release. Can't let Steve trick me with that damned doublespeak otherwise known as LOGIC.
Attack the arguments, not the man. Ad hominem. Logic 101.
I would imagine any video games portraying homosexuality in any manner are strictly verboten. All characters in all games must be heterosexual. Pikachu would be an example of a verboten character.
Nice try, but I would imagine games that portray ANY sexuality of ANY kind would be forbidden. Or, "verboten" as you would say. It is Cub Scouts after all.
The parent didn't mention danger. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Is it more dangerous to go camping amongst wild animals or to go to the movies? I would assume the former, but that doesn't mean I think scouts should abandon camping for movie night. I'm not one of the second-amendment crazies, but you don't have to be a fanatic to see the flaw in your argument.
It's the difference between a badge for young filmmakers and a badge for watching TV. The young filmmaker learns something. Just like the young programmer. But as an audience member/video game player you don't learn anything. Scouts should be about doing and creating things productive. No one needs to be taught how to waste time.
In all honesty, kids don't need more encouragement to game. Yes I'm a parent, but I'm young enough to still be a gamer and trust me, I didn't/don't need more encouragement.
Have you read the requirements? It's using video games as a cover to teach useful skills. For example, how to research a purchase, about the ESRB and content ratings, how to schedule leisure time so it doesn't interfere with responsibilities, and how to connect a console to a television. It's teaching them to play responsibly, which is probably more than they had done before, while teaching them a few more life skills.
You've kidding, right? How to research a purchase? Yeah, that's just what we need, teach our children to be even more consumeristic than we are. The ESRB ratings? Kids know about these - if it says anything other than T or M it sucks. They also know to make sure their parents don't know about the ESRB. Schedule time? Yeah, I'd like to see that one (filling out a log to make sure they fulfilled their badge requirements doesn't teach them to be responsible). And the lovably laughable "how to connect to a television." This is the type of thing parents have their ten year old do for them. Not to mention the only skills required are being able to connect the yellow cord to the yellow input and knowing how to work a television remote.
I play videogames and all but I don't delude myself, I know it's a waste of time.
Well, here's a difference. Chess is pure strategy mixed with mathematical harmony. It's a logic exercise that helps develop the mind's ability to critically assess a situation.
There is only one video game that does this: chess. Starcraft comes close, but no cigar.
"would a video game merit badge be less useful that indian lore?" - Yes. Indian lore raises cultural awareness, provides history lessons, and demonstrates the philosophical worldview of a primitive culture. Coin collecting teaches history and economics. Basket weaving and pottery are skills that few have these days and teaches one about manipulating physical properties.
The problem with video games as a merit badge for Cub Scouts is that Cub Scouts is the type of place you send your children to get them off their ass and stop playing video games. It's like giving a merit badge for watching sitcoms. It just doesn't compare to things like camping, first aid, and community service.
Maybe if you knew what atheist means, you wouldn't have this complaint. The A-prefix means not. Theism refers to the belief in a religious entity. So how do you include a non-religion in your list of religions? That's like calling Scientology scientific discipline.
It's FUD because of who MS isn't going after (at least, not directly). IBM, Google, and Oracle/Sun. I think the main reason you don't see much of an uproar from the Linux community right now is because they're waiting for the conflict to reach these giants. MS used FUD to scare HTC and Novell into signing these agreements but those three big Linux companies aren't the type to be intimidated. They have the patents and the money to fight back and once Microsoft's FUD campaign becomes too aggressive and threatens one of them, it'll go to court. Getting into a patent dispute with IBM is suicide and that's exactly where this Linux-royalty strategy of Microsoft's will take them.
So I'm pretty optimistic about the whole situation. This "be very afraid" strategy is short-sighted. It's extortion and extortion only works on those you can outmuscle.
Note: you were modded interesting because it's interesting that a person on Slashdot could actually be so naive. Especially considering your low user ID, you should know better.
It's not about phones, it's about furthering the claim that Linux infringes on unspecified Microsoft patents. Apple isn't trying to make all Linux users pay them a royalty, they're just trying to ensure that some of the unique iPhone features remain unique to the iPhone. Of course you can always argue the validity of the patent process, but the fact remains that by filing suit they're making these claims based on specific patents which they will have to cite in court.
It's more than just speculation that Microsoft will continue their attempts to intimidate businesses that profit from Linux. Novell is a prime example. Balmer has also claimed that Red Hat is cheating them out of Linux royalties. So any company that produces hardware (of any kind) that runs Android or any other Linux variant is clearly in the crosshairs. Apple and Microsoft already have a cross-licensing deal so it's doubtful that this move had anything to do with protecting themselves from big bad Apple and everything to do with "fucking killing Google." And penguins.
They're trying. Have you seen the Verizon commercials for the Windows Mobile phone? "What network do you trust to Bing blah blah blah?"
Yeah, it's pathetic and completely contrived, but they're trying. I think they came up with the word because they thought they could turn it into a verb, which only makes your post even more funny.:)
Lets face it, Google's been compromising their "do no evil" mantra ever since they went public. Financial interests have just outweighed the ethical considerations that originally endeared most of us to the company. But lets face it, their method of profit is quite questionable if you believe that privacy and anonymity are the right of all internet users.
We need a search engine more like Wikipedia. Run by a non-profit organization with open-source code that prioritizes relevancy rather those who have bought the top search results. A search engine that doesn't index anything that's not relevant to search (i.e. they're not trying to discover the best way to advertise to their users). Of course if such a site were to exist it would require some hefty resources, but this could be covered with minimal advertising that correlates to the searched terms. The big difference would be that it wouldn't data mine, as a non-profit organization there would be no motivation to data mine, and as open-source users would be aware of specifically how it works.
I don't think Google is blatantly evil but it's become a bit too big for comfort. I certainly don't like how the only competitive rival is MS (Bing, Yahoo), it's like the internet is being divided into Macs and PCs. The open source community has been so in love with Google this past decade that they've left themselves out. But we need an open search engine for the internet before we become totally dependent on these two big players. Google has a damn good algorithm, but I find it hard to believe that an open algorithm that could be modified by anyone wouldn't become much better. I love a lot of the stuff Google does, especially under Dr. Larry Brilliant, but there needs to be more players in the search game. And one of those players needs to be motivated by something other than money and doesn't answer to a board of directors.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I agree. I was painting with broad strokes, but you're totally right in making that distinction.
Quicktime and iTunes are good at what they do. I have heard bad things about the Windows versions, though.
But as far as professional software, Logic is amazing. I've heard similar things about Final Cut, but I don't do video editing.
Why doesn't Adobe just get really tough and drop all production of the Creative Suite for Macintosh? I bet that would get Steve's attention PDQ.
And watch Apple come out with their own competing product and lose a giant chunk of their user base? Apple does software very well. Look what happened to Adobe Premiere in the face of Final Cut. Look what happened to ProTools in the face of Logic. Apple has a knack for making professional creative tools. They're much better at it than Adobe and they also build the OS.
If Adobe cut support for Apple then they'd be out of business in two years.
I don't think this is the type of freedom our founding father's had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. I think the type of freedom they had in mind would be Apple having the freedom to not support Flash on their device and consumers having the freedom to not buy an Apple product if this design decision is not to their liking. It's not like Apple is locking out Adobe to push their own proprietary standard, there is no anti-trust issue here.
Adobe is the next Sun. They're going to keep faltering and faltering until they're bought out by some giant. Open source and open standards are going to kill them. Eventually Gimp will work well enough to replace Photoshop, Flash will be dead, an open source WYSIWYG will replace InDesign/Dreamweaver, and this trend will continue with all their products. I think the folks at Adobe realize the impact that open source will have. They know that keeping the web running on Flash is their only hope to survive as a company.
Adobe is like if Microsoft only had Office and IE. Look at what OpenOffice, Firefox, Chrome, and Google Docs are doing. Software as a product is a failing business model, software as a service is the future. IBM and Google know this, that's why they're so ahead of the curve.
There's gotta be a law against it, right?
It's not a disease, it's a parasite. I doubt there's a law regarding it, but I'm sure you could sue in a civil court.
That's an easy one. The salt doesn't evaporate, the water does. If they create these in the ocean then the salt will just fall back down.
In fact, that's a way to desalinate water. Evaporate it to pull it from the salt.
I know nothing about climate so I figured I'd throw this out there for someone to answer. Wouldn't this just cause more rainfall? I mean, I know they love the rain in Washington and all, but damn.
Look dude, no one's going to put Bill Gate's name in the news for spending a couple grand on some practical solution that requires no new technology. He has to spend at least a few hundred K for that type of press. Take your pragmatism somewhere else.
when they are at their best they are incompetent boobs, and at worst corrupted tyrannical assholes
Obama claims that people need to get more involved with the political process, starting with being better informed. The federal government wouldn't be full of incompetent boobs if incompetent boobs like yourself would stop making an enemy of the state and start holding it accountable by being politically active in ways that extend beyond bitching.
When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us. - Barack Obama
Translation: Straw Man.
"According to Obama, 'information becomes a distraction' when it comes to iPads, the Xbox, etc. (All items he admits not knowing how to use.) He's basically saying we are getting too much information too quickly, and from 'unreliable sources.'
More reliable sources include politicians??? I'd much rather learn from a fictional X-Box game. It's much more likely to be based on the truth.
It should be illegal for any politician to pass laws about things he has no fucking idea about. If he hasn't used that class of gadget he should just shut his fucking mouth. I had high hopes for your president, but I have to say they're in ruins.
OH NO! OBAMA'S NOT A GEEK! Maybe it should be illegal for a politician to pass a law he knows nothing about, but since this has nothing to do with passing a law, how is that relevant?
Do you even read the entire (misconstrued) summary, let alone the article, or did you just find a phrase that you disagreed with and ranted? You'd rather "learn from a fictional X-Box game" than from Obama, who used to teach at Harvard. Way to prove the man's point.
If I had any mod points I'd bump you up. The parent does exactly what Obama complained about: he takes a politically neutral subject and contorts it in such a way that "information overload" all of a sudden becomes "liberal media conspiracy." Gotta love how he insinuated that the evil liberal media was in cahoots with the terrorists. He really exposed himself with "Taliban-type attack." He probably meant Al-Qaida, but they're all brown, so what's it matter?
Gotta love how he claims that you can use statistics to lie and spread misinformation. You don't have to use statistics. Accusing the media of conspiracy for not covering certain stories more in depth is so logically absurd that he must be intending on spreading misinformation himself. There's a much easier explanation: incompetence. But not on the media's part, on the part of the reader base. People care more about stories about Pandas having sex than they do about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict so the media invests more time and money covering Panda stories. The BBC, which tends to support Obama more than most American media outlets, actually does cover stories such as Oslo more in depth rather than just gloss over them. This seems to indicate that the ineptitude of the American media probably has more to do with our culture than some conspiracy between Obama, terrorists, and Ted Turner.
The fact of the matter is that if you get your daily news from Sarah Palin or Ariana Huffington's blog, you're not getting reliable information. The internet is full of unreliable information from all angles of the political spectrum, so it's doubtful that Obama was seeking to silence political opposition with these comments.
Yes, but would the prosecutors and law enforcement done anything if it was YOUR e-mail? I doubt it.
Justice tends to be biased in favor of those with money and power. Just look at Ben Roethlesburger. He raped a girl and they didn't even take it to court.
Yes. If only I had your insight, I would have followed your lead and not read the press release. Can't let Steve trick me with that damned doublespeak otherwise known as LOGIC.
Attack the arguments, not the man. Ad hominem. Logic 101.
I would imagine any video games portraying homosexuality in any manner are strictly verboten. All characters in all games must be heterosexual. Pikachu would be an example of a verboten character.
Nice try, but I would imagine games that portray ANY sexuality of ANY kind would be forbidden. Or, "verboten" as you would say. It is Cub Scouts after all.
The parent didn't mention danger. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Is it more dangerous to go camping amongst wild animals or to go to the movies? I would assume the former, but that doesn't mean I think scouts should abandon camping for movie night. I'm not one of the second-amendment crazies, but you don't have to be a fanatic to see the flaw in your argument.
It's the difference between a badge for young filmmakers and a badge for watching TV. The young filmmaker learns something. Just like the young programmer. But as an audience member/video game player you don't learn anything. Scouts should be about doing and creating things productive. No one needs to be taught how to waste time.
In all honesty, kids don't need more encouragement to game. Yes I'm a parent, but I'm young enough to still be a gamer and trust me, I didn't/don't need more encouragement.
Have you read the requirements? It's using video games as a cover to teach useful skills. For example, how to research a purchase, about the ESRB and content ratings, how to schedule leisure time so it doesn't interfere with responsibilities, and how to connect a console to a television. It's teaching them to play responsibly, which is probably more than they had done before, while teaching them a few more life skills.
You've kidding, right? How to research a purchase? Yeah, that's just what we need, teach our children to be even more consumeristic than we are. The ESRB ratings? Kids know about these - if it says anything other than T or M it sucks. They also know to make sure their parents don't know about the ESRB. Schedule time? Yeah, I'd like to see that one (filling out a log to make sure they fulfilled their badge requirements doesn't teach them to be responsible). And the lovably laughable "how to connect to a television." This is the type of thing parents have their ten year old do for them. Not to mention the only skills required are being able to connect the yellow cord to the yellow input and knowing how to work a television remote.
I play videogames and all but I don't delude myself, I know it's a waste of time.
Well, here's a difference. Chess is pure strategy mixed with mathematical harmony. It's a logic exercise that helps develop the mind's ability to critically assess a situation.
There is only one video game that does this: chess. Starcraft comes close, but no cigar.
"would a video game merit badge be less useful that indian lore?" - Yes. Indian lore raises cultural awareness, provides history lessons, and demonstrates the philosophical worldview of a primitive culture. Coin collecting teaches history and economics. Basket weaving and pottery are skills that few have these days and teaches one about manipulating physical properties.
The problem with video games as a merit badge for Cub Scouts is that Cub Scouts is the type of place you send your children to get them off their ass and stop playing video games. It's like giving a merit badge for watching sitcoms. It just doesn't compare to things like camping, first aid, and community service.
Maybe if you knew what atheist means, you wouldn't have this complaint. The A-prefix means not. Theism refers to the belief in a religious entity. So how do you include a non-religion in your list of religions? That's like calling Scientology scientific discipline.
It's FUD because of who MS isn't going after (at least, not directly). IBM, Google, and Oracle/Sun. I think the main reason you don't see much of an uproar from the Linux community right now is because they're waiting for the conflict to reach these giants. MS used FUD to scare HTC and Novell into signing these agreements but those three big Linux companies aren't the type to be intimidated. They have the patents and the money to fight back and once Microsoft's FUD campaign becomes too aggressive and threatens one of them, it'll go to court. Getting into a patent dispute with IBM is suicide and that's exactly where this Linux-royalty strategy of Microsoft's will take them.
So I'm pretty optimistic about the whole situation. This "be very afraid" strategy is short-sighted. It's extortion and extortion only works on those you can outmuscle.
Note: you were modded interesting because it's interesting that a person on Slashdot could actually be so naive. Especially considering your low user ID, you should know better.
Be very afraid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo
It's not about phones, it's about furthering the claim that Linux infringes on unspecified Microsoft patents. Apple isn't trying to make all Linux users pay them a royalty, they're just trying to ensure that some of the unique iPhone features remain unique to the iPhone. Of course you can always argue the validity of the patent process, but the fact remains that by filing suit they're making these claims based on specific patents which they will have to cite in court.
It's more than just speculation that Microsoft will continue their attempts to intimidate businesses that profit from Linux. Novell is a prime example. Balmer has also claimed that Red Hat is cheating them out of Linux royalties. So any company that produces hardware (of any kind) that runs Android or any other Linux variant is clearly in the crosshairs. Apple and Microsoft already have a cross-licensing deal so it's doubtful that this move had anything to do with protecting themselves from big bad Apple and everything to do with "fucking killing Google." And penguins.
They're trying. Have you seen the Verizon commercials for the Windows Mobile phone? "What network do you trust to Bing blah blah blah?"
Yeah, it's pathetic and completely contrived, but they're trying. I think they came up with the word because they thought they could turn it into a verb, which only makes your post even more funny. :)
To start with? You act like Bing is new. Ever hear of MSN?
Lets face it, Google's been compromising their "do no evil" mantra ever since they went public. Financial interests have just outweighed the ethical considerations that originally endeared most of us to the company. But lets face it, their method of profit is quite questionable if you believe that privacy and anonymity are the right of all internet users.
We need a search engine more like Wikipedia. Run by a non-profit organization with open-source code that prioritizes relevancy rather those who have bought the top search results. A search engine that doesn't index anything that's not relevant to search (i.e. they're not trying to discover the best way to advertise to their users). Of course if such a site were to exist it would require some hefty resources, but this could be covered with minimal advertising that correlates to the searched terms. The big difference would be that it wouldn't data mine, as a non-profit organization there would be no motivation to data mine, and as open-source users would be aware of specifically how it works.
I don't think Google is blatantly evil but it's become a bit too big for comfort. I certainly don't like how the only competitive rival is MS (Bing, Yahoo), it's like the internet is being divided into Macs and PCs. The open source community has been so in love with Google this past decade that they've left themselves out. But we need an open search engine for the internet before we become totally dependent on these two big players. Google has a damn good algorithm, but I find it hard to believe that an open algorithm that could be modified by anyone wouldn't become much better. I love a lot of the stuff Google does, especially under Dr. Larry Brilliant, but there needs to be more players in the search game. And one of those players needs to be motivated by something other than money and doesn't answer to a board of directors.