Then I read that they are only supporting 4.0+. Seriously? You can do everything they're doing there with the support jar and include all the way back to 2.0. If you want to do it nicely just pull in ActionBarSherlock and PageIndicator.
ActionBarSherlock has it's own bugs, and it adds inconsistencies.
It's just easier to support 4.0 and higher, and with 4.0's market share climbing you'll see this more and more. It's not worth taking the download size increase, additional bugs, or additional inconsistencies in ActionBarSherlock, when you could just support the OS most of your users are likely to use anyway.
Plus, there are improvements around the camera in 3.0 and higher that ActionBarSherlock doesn't fix.
if it were then projects like Linux would have collapsed a very long time ago.
To be fair, just because the people working on Linux have good (well, from what I've seen, decent) communication skills doesn't mean any random developer will.
Working on a solo project is much different than working on a group project.
But I don't want these add-ons polluting a standard. This is what we have plug-ins for.
The plug ins that are... part of the standard? Because plugins are part of the HTML standard, the standard is already "polluted." I'm not sure how one could be fine with plugins in HTML, but freak out when we talk about plugins for video decoding. I mean, that's already the biggest use of the current plugin standard: decoding of videos.
But you know, let's give them a standard "plugin" interface. Instead of "bloated Flash" I hope you all enjoy the 50 separate implementations of DRM you get, with variable stability and attack vectors.
Flash already has it's own DRM plugin architecture. I've seen many sites implement it.
BYOD means you can no longer trust your own network because you no longer have the same level of control over the devices on it. And if you do not trust your own network, you need to increase your security costs substantially and provide other resources that you would otherwise not need to offer.
Right. Because corporate owned devices could never ever ever become quietly compromised. Sounds safe to me.
Where pixels of a certain colour arranged in a certain way on a screen and even the bits used to represent them are illegal. I hate kiddy porn as much as everyone else but feck it throwing people in jail for looking at pictures is taking the piss.
Because if there is a kiddy porn picture someone had to take the kiddy porn picture?
The bits aren't the problem. It's the supporting of where the bits came from that's the problem. If the kiddy porn was entire computer generated (i.e. there was no actual kiddy), then it would be sick, but probably not illegal. But if this person got pictures from someone who abused a kid to get them (and arguably making kiddy porn with a kid qualifies as abuse), then this person is an accessory.
Let me put it this way: If someone took kiddie porn pictures of you when you were a kid, and now those pictures were traded around the net without your permission, would you not be a teensy bit upset? Would you not disagree that they're just "pixels of a certain colour arranged in a certain way on a screen?" The pictures are a result of your abuse. Anybody trafficking in those pictures is either indirectly or directly supporting that abuse.
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Americans - home of the most ludicrous legal system...
Really? I'd think North Korea would be at the top of the list at least, with at least a few others until we hit the USA... But hey, as long as we're throwing all perspective out the window, this is obviously the most ludicrous comment I've seen on Slashdot. Maybe I should sue you for defaming the US on the internet, hmmmm? After all, this comment could cause many innocent deaths from violent Americans who have been incensed by your comment. Someone needs to be held responsible. That's the ethical thing to do.
Why do you think every publisher ran for the exits and settled with the Feds? This is a slam dunk case, they have the emails, the meeting notes, they know exactly what happened and it was industry collusion and price fixing under the federal laws
Probably because from Apple's perspective, all Apple did was let the publishers set their own book prices. That's basically what this case is about. On Amazon, Amazon set the book prices, and Apple said to the publishers they could come to the iBooks store and set their own prices, and get out from under Amazon's thumb. That sort of collusion doesn't seem illegal (but IANAL.)
Publishers may have set prices higher than dead tree books, which is a shame, but also totally not illegal itself.
Anonymous is as much a organisation as people waiting at a bus stop are. And guess what, criminals also take the bus.
And I'm sure the rest of Anonymous will speak out against this action annnnnny day now. Right? After all, an "organization" that is strong enough to stand up to governments should be strong enough to self police their own ranks, right?
At 7 I knew how guns worked, I was horribly bullied and friendless, and yes the thought occured to me "well I could just kill them if it's really that bad". Thing was, it wasn't -- it was bad, but a 7 year old knows whether or not killing somebody is bad.
No, not all 7 year olds do. That's specifically why we have a special legal system for people under the age of 18. The brain has not necessarily developed to understand consequences to actions maturely. That's why we have a legal system based around people under the age of 18 not being as liable for actions because they don't understand the consequences at well.
You may have been a smart 7 year old. And when we have a country who's seven year old population consists entirely of you, let's give guns to 7 year olds. But there is a lot of evidence and precedence that children biologically lack the mental facilities to make these sorts of decision. Again, that's why crimes committed by children are not handled the same in our legal system.
How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for? That would do a hell of a lot more to curtail gun-related deaths, and without the (un)intended side effect of rendering personal protection weapons useless by legislative fiat.
Not to totally poo-poo the idea, but I'm pretty sure kids accidentally shooting other kids with guns know how guns work and usually what they're used for. That's the entire problem. You're dealing with children who are mentally immature. They understand what guns are used for, they simply don't have the mental processes yet to distinguish what is appropriate and what isn't. Kids who aim a gun at another kid and pull the trigger know guns are used for shooting people, but because they're 7 years old they don't understand the seriousness of what they're doing. You can't teach that to them until their brain develops more. It's the same reason we don't give out drivers licenses to 7 year olds.
This doesn't even begin to get into the subject of kids who understand perfectly well what they are doing but are using mom or dad's gun to shoot people intentionally.
They did, but Kent State pretty much was the last straw. "Less than lethal" weapons are a godsend for them, because now they can abuse the public with impunity since, hey, at least you aren't dead! And if you weren't doing something wrong, the cops wouldn't have attacked you, right?
Also saying Kent State was the "last straw" is brushing aside a lot of racial violence involving guns.
They did, but Kent State pretty much was the last straw. "Less than lethal" weapons are a godsend for them, because now they can abuse the public with impunity since, hey, at least you aren't dead! And if you weren't doing something wrong, the cops wouldn't have attacked you, right?
Sure, but some (not all) cops are always going to abuse their power. You could give them a tree branch as a weapon and they'd still beat people with it. The problem isn't the tazer, it's the availability of the taser to people who abuse it.
Unfortunately the attitude towards police officers in this country that results in a fair number of them being undereducated, undertrained, and underpaid will always end with some police officers who just don't care, and are going to abuse their authority. While people complain about tazers, they're missing the more fundamental problems that will result in abuse no matter what weapon you give the police. But hey, tazers are easy to talk about.
When tazers were originally deployed they were a "replacement only for lethal force", now they are used at the drop of the hat against loudmouthed teens, nonviolent protestors, and pregnant women with little to no repercussions.
Because police never used much more lethal guns in this same manner?
And that doesn't even begin to start with people who are buying licenses from scratch. You've got to pay the $2000 to get in the door at some point, and Adobe has discounted CC licenses if you already own Creative Suite.
Being able to put non-Adobe files in my cloud storage: priceless.
Creative Cloud let's you put non-Adobe files in your cloud drive. It's just a file store, like Google Drive. I keep Apple Motion and bitmap files in mine just fine, and it'll sync them.
There are a lot of issues in Creative Cloud, but that's not one of them. Not to mention, Creative Suite Master Collection (which is what Creative Cloud is) is $2000, so even ignoring the cloud storage entirely, Creative Cloud is the better deal.
No its not...and it won't Apple will never be a serious contender for the Desktop, it simply costs too much. Sales dropped 22% last quarter...
Which is less than sales dropped for the PC industry. Some surveys even put Apple at break even.
In the end it probably doesn't matter. If this trend continues, tablets or other alternative devices will outsell PCs. Microsoft's majority in a market of nothing will be worth nothing.
I'd agree with everything except for that. Despite Microsoft's abuse of UEFI (for things like boot keys), UEFI brings a lot of advantages to the table. I'd hate to see UEFI dumped because people are wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. UEFI adds the ability for user added boot time extensions, which makes it a hell of a lot easier than BIOS to customize. Being able to choose your own boot UI as opposed to whatever the hardware manufacturer wants to force on you is pretty sweet. On the Mac side, people have been writing all sorts of extensions to add complicated boot menus and customization to Apple's hardware. Stuff that makes the legacy BIOS stuff look, well... legacy.
Android, no. Java isn't the native API for anything, and Android's flavor of Java isn't the same as the other flavors of Java. Having said that, it's obviously a viable platform.
True, but if you're a Java developer, what's going to look more familiar: Blackberry's barely OOP C, or Android's Java-like API?
This is exactly the reason I haven't learned Android development. Why have me learn new APIs for old things? Give me the same APIs that I'm used to on the desktop to the extent that these are compatible with the mobile environment, and then I'll learn the APIs that are specific to the niche I'm developing for. And that's exactly what BlackBerry has done.
That depends entirely on what "the same APIs I'm used to on the desktop" means.
iOS includes large chunks of the Mac APIs, making it a great fit for Mac developers. Even if you aren't a Mac developer, you get all the C/C++ chunks. I'm pretty sure there is even a build of Qt for iOS. And if you're a Java developer? Blackberry might as well be another planet compared to Android.
So again, your definition of "new" API varies depending on where you are coming from.
It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari.
Are you referring to the brief period in which Apple Software Update had Safari pre-checked as an update option? As I remember, that didn't last very long, and it didn't change the default browser. While the default checked bit was annoying, it didn't trample any user settings and didn't force anyone to use anything.
It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways.
How so? It installs a driver an an app, both of which are easily removable.
Its still used to update devices!?
No?
Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware
I can buy tracks straight from my iOS device too without iTunes.
It doesn't sound like you've ever really spent much time with the Apple ecosystem, and are just armchairing it.
To surrender to a corporate tyrant is just as bad as to surrender to any other sort of tyrant.
Monsanto is not the only player in genetically modified crops. Sure, they're not a positive force, but talking about genetically modified crops does not mean automatically talking about Monsanto. Actually, by making that logical conclusion, you're giving more power to Monsanto, and less to their more friendly competitors, who could probably use the extra business to keep Monsanto at bay.
Yes, it is. Because you will be wasting money and effort helping DRM to entrench. DRM won't have a standart? Good. It will provide poor UX ? Even better. I am against buying lube at victim's expence. W3C should focus on providing good standart and reference implementation for DRM-free content distribution. That would be much more usefull. If someone wants us shacked, I sure as hell ain't wasting time and resources on coming up with ideas on how to pad them with cushions and making them comfortable to wear.
You're applying an idealism to HTML5 that was never there to begin with. HTML5 has never been about DRM free content. One could even argue that the codecs themselves are a form of DRM. If you were against HTML helping DRM entrench, you should have jumped off the HTML train years ago when Netscape introduced plugins, or when Java applets appeared. It's a bit too late to be crying about proprietary content now.
It's especially late when stopping DRM in HTML5 won't actually stop the content problem. Sites will just keep using plugins like Flash and Silverlight, and we'll still be in the exact same situation. At least writing the DRM in Javascript means it should run multiplatform, but it seems people would rather fight a small advancement if they can't have the large advancement they want, leaving us in the current miserable situation we're in.
Slashdot Mirror
ABS is fairly rock solid, so I wouldn't really consider that that much a reason to hold back 1/3 of the android market.
We've seen issues with ActionBarSherlock. Not enough to keep us from releasing the app, but definitely enough to cause development fits.
ABS has been good about fixing bugs, but again, that's just one more thing that gets in the way that we'd rather do without.
Then I read that they are only supporting 4.0+. Seriously? You can do everything they're doing there with the support jar and include all the way back to 2.0. If you want to do it nicely just pull in ActionBarSherlock and PageIndicator.
ActionBarSherlock has it's own bugs, and it adds inconsistencies.
It's just easier to support 4.0 and higher, and with 4.0's market share climbing you'll see this more and more. It's not worth taking the download size increase, additional bugs, or additional inconsistencies in ActionBarSherlock, when you could just support the OS most of your users are likely to use anyway.
Plus, there are improvements around the camera in 3.0 and higher that ActionBarSherlock doesn't fix.
if it were then projects like Linux would have collapsed a very long time ago.
To be fair, just because the people working on Linux have good (well, from what I've seen, decent) communication skills doesn't mean any random developer will.
Working on a solo project is much different than working on a group project.
But I don't want these add-ons polluting a standard. This is what we have plug-ins for.
The plug ins that are... part of the standard? Because plugins are part of the HTML standard, the standard is already "polluted." I'm not sure how one could be fine with plugins in HTML, but freak out when we talk about plugins for video decoding. I mean, that's already the biggest use of the current plugin standard: decoding of videos.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html
But you know, let's give them a standard "plugin" interface. Instead of "bloated Flash" I hope you all enjoy the 50 separate implementations of DRM you get, with variable stability and attack vectors.
Flash already has it's own DRM plugin architecture. I've seen many sites implement it.
BYOD means you can no longer trust your own network because you no longer have the same level of control over the devices on it. And if you do not trust your own network, you need to increase your security costs substantially and provide other resources that you would otherwise not need to offer.
Right. Because corporate owned devices could never ever ever become quietly compromised. Sounds safe to me.
Where pixels of a certain colour arranged in a certain way on a screen and even the bits used to represent them are illegal. I hate kiddy porn as much as everyone else but feck it throwing people in jail for looking at pictures is taking the piss.
Because if there is a kiddy porn picture someone had to take the kiddy porn picture?
The bits aren't the problem. It's the supporting of where the bits came from that's the problem. If the kiddy porn was entire computer generated (i.e. there was no actual kiddy), then it would be sick, but probably not illegal. But if this person got pictures from someone who abused a kid to get them (and arguably making kiddy porn with a kid qualifies as abuse), then this person is an accessory.
Let me put it this way: If someone took kiddie porn pictures of you when you were a kid, and now those pictures were traded around the net without your permission, would you not be a teensy bit upset? Would you not disagree that they're just "pixels of a certain colour arranged in a certain way on a screen?" The pictures are a result of your abuse. Anybody trafficking in those pictures is either indirectly or directly supporting that abuse.
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Americans - home of the most ludicrous legal system...
Really? I'd think North Korea would be at the top of the list at least, with at least a few others until we hit the USA... But hey, as long as we're throwing all perspective out the window, this is obviously the most ludicrous comment I've seen on Slashdot. Maybe I should sue you for defaming the US on the internet, hmmmm? After all, this comment could cause many innocent deaths from violent Americans who have been incensed by your comment. Someone needs to be held responsible. That's the ethical thing to do.
Why do you think every publisher ran for the exits and settled with the Feds? This is a slam dunk case, they have the emails, the meeting notes, they know exactly what happened and it was industry collusion and price fixing under the federal laws
Probably because from Apple's perspective, all Apple did was let the publishers set their own book prices. That's basically what this case is about. On Amazon, Amazon set the book prices, and Apple said to the publishers they could come to the iBooks store and set their own prices, and get out from under Amazon's thumb. That sort of collusion doesn't seem illegal (but IANAL.)
Publishers may have set prices higher than dead tree books, which is a shame, but also totally not illegal itself.
Anonymous is as much a organisation as people waiting at a bus stop are. And guess what, criminals also take the bus.
And I'm sure the rest of Anonymous will speak out against this action annnnnny day now. Right? After all, an "organization" that is strong enough to stand up to governments should be strong enough to self police their own ranks, right?
UMMM, you underestimate kids.
At 7 I knew how guns worked, I was horribly bullied and friendless, and yes the thought occured to me "well I could just kill them if it's really that bad". Thing was, it wasn't -- it was bad, but a 7 year old knows whether or not killing somebody is bad.
No, not all 7 year olds do. That's specifically why we have a special legal system for people under the age of 18. The brain has not necessarily developed to understand consequences to actions maturely. That's why we have a legal system based around people under the age of 18 not being as liable for actions because they don't understand the consequences at well.
You may have been a smart 7 year old. And when we have a country who's seven year old population consists entirely of you, let's give guns to 7 year olds. But there is a lot of evidence and precedence that children biologically lack the mental facilities to make these sorts of decision. Again, that's why crimes committed by children are not handled the same in our legal system.
How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for? That would do a hell of a lot more to curtail gun-related deaths, and without the (un)intended side effect of rendering personal protection weapons useless by legislative fiat.
Not to totally poo-poo the idea, but I'm pretty sure kids accidentally shooting other kids with guns know how guns work and usually what they're used for. That's the entire problem. You're dealing with children who are mentally immature. They understand what guns are used for, they simply don't have the mental processes yet to distinguish what is appropriate and what isn't. Kids who aim a gun at another kid and pull the trigger know guns are used for shooting people, but because they're 7 years old they don't understand the seriousness of what they're doing. You can't teach that to them until their brain develops more. It's the same reason we don't give out drivers licenses to 7 year olds.
This doesn't even begin to get into the subject of kids who understand perfectly well what they are doing but are using mom or dad's gun to shoot people intentionally.
They did, but Kent State pretty much was the last straw. "Less than lethal" weapons are a godsend for them, because now they can abuse the public with impunity since, hey, at least you aren't dead! And if you weren't doing something wrong, the cops wouldn't have attacked you, right?
Also saying Kent State was the "last straw" is brushing aside a lot of racial violence involving guns.
They did, but Kent State pretty much was the last straw. "Less than lethal" weapons are a godsend for them, because now they can abuse the public with impunity since, hey, at least you aren't dead! And if you weren't doing something wrong, the cops wouldn't have attacked you, right?
Sure, but some (not all) cops are always going to abuse their power. You could give them a tree branch as a weapon and they'd still beat people with it. The problem isn't the tazer, it's the availability of the taser to people who abuse it.
Unfortunately the attitude towards police officers in this country that results in a fair number of them being undereducated, undertrained, and underpaid will always end with some police officers who just don't care, and are going to abuse their authority. While people complain about tazers, they're missing the more fundamental problems that will result in abuse no matter what weapon you give the police. But hey, tazers are easy to talk about.
When tazers were originally deployed they were a "replacement only for lethal force", now they are used at the drop of the hat against loudmouthed teens, nonviolent protestors, and pregnant women with little to no repercussions.
Because police never used much more lethal guns in this same manner?
CS6 MSC upgrade is $375. So, even ignoring the storage, Creative Cloud is a fucking ripoff.
It's $529 if you own CS5.5. $1049 if you own CS5. Not sure where you are pulling that number from. So it comes out to about $500 a year if you want to stay up to date, even if you only upgrade every other version.
http://store1.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?event=displayProduct&categoryOID=7240484&store=OLS-US
And that doesn't even begin to start with people who are buying licenses from scratch. You've got to pay the $2000 to get in the door at some point, and Adobe has discounted CC licenses if you already own Creative Suite.
Being able to put non-Adobe files in my cloud storage: priceless.
Creative Cloud let's you put non-Adobe files in your cloud drive. It's just a file store, like Google Drive. I keep Apple Motion and bitmap files in mine just fine, and it'll sync them.
There are a lot of issues in Creative Cloud, but that's not one of them. Not to mention, Creative Suite Master Collection (which is what Creative Cloud is) is $2000, so even ignoring the cloud storage entirely, Creative Cloud is the better deal.
He said Apple portables.
No its not...and it won't Apple will never be a serious contender for the Desktop, it simply costs too much. Sales dropped 22% last quarter...
Which is less than sales dropped for the PC industry. Some surveys even put Apple at break even.
In the end it probably doesn't matter. If this trend continues, tablets or other alternative devices will outsell PCs. Microsoft's majority in a market of nothing will be worth nothing.
dump UEFI
I'd agree with everything except for that. Despite Microsoft's abuse of UEFI (for things like boot keys), UEFI brings a lot of advantages to the table. I'd hate to see UEFI dumped because people are wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. UEFI adds the ability for user added boot time extensions, which makes it a hell of a lot easier than BIOS to customize. Being able to choose your own boot UI as opposed to whatever the hardware manufacturer wants to force on you is pretty sweet. On the Mac side, people have been writing all sorts of extensions to add complicated boot menus and customization to Apple's hardware. Stuff that makes the legacy BIOS stuff look, well... legacy.
Android, no. Java isn't the native API for anything, and Android's flavor of Java isn't the same as the other flavors of Java. Having said that, it's obviously a viable platform.
True, but if you're a Java developer, what's going to look more familiar: Blackberry's barely OOP C, or Android's Java-like API?
This is exactly the reason I haven't learned Android development. Why have me learn new APIs for old things? Give me the same APIs that I'm used to on the desktop to the extent that these are compatible with the mobile environment, and then I'll learn the APIs that are specific to the niche I'm developing for. And that's exactly what BlackBerry has done.
That depends entirely on what "the same APIs I'm used to on the desktop" means.
iOS includes large chunks of the Mac APIs, making it a great fit for Mac developers. Even if you aren't a Mac developer, you get all the C/C++ chunks. I'm pretty sure there is even a build of Qt for iOS. And if you're a Java developer? Blackberry might as well be another planet compared to Android.
So again, your definition of "new" API varies depending on where you are coming from.
It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari.
Are you referring to the brief period in which Apple Software Update had Safari pre-checked as an update option? As I remember, that didn't last very long, and it didn't change the default browser. While the default checked bit was annoying, it didn't trample any user settings and didn't force anyone to use anything.
It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways.
How so? It installs a driver an an app, both of which are easily removable.
Its still used to update devices!?
No?
Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware
I can buy tracks straight from my iOS device too without iTunes.
It doesn't sound like you've ever really spent much time with the Apple ecosystem, and are just armchairing it.
To surrender to a corporate tyrant is just as bad as to surrender to any other sort of tyrant.
Monsanto is not the only player in genetically modified crops. Sure, they're not a positive force, but talking about genetically modified crops does not mean automatically talking about Monsanto. Actually, by making that logical conclusion, you're giving more power to Monsanto, and less to their more friendly competitors, who could probably use the extra business to keep Monsanto at bay.
Yes, it is. Because you will be wasting money and effort helping DRM to entrench. DRM won't have a standart? Good. It will provide poor UX ? Even better. I am against buying lube at victim's expence. W3C should focus on providing good standart and reference implementation for DRM-free content distribution. That would be much more usefull.
If someone wants us shacked, I sure as hell ain't wasting time and resources on coming up with ideas on how to pad them with cushions and making them comfortable to wear.
You're applying an idealism to HTML5 that was never there to begin with. HTML5 has never been about DRM free content. One could even argue that the codecs themselves are a form of DRM. If you were against HTML helping DRM entrench, you should have jumped off the HTML train years ago when Netscape introduced plugins, or when Java applets appeared. It's a bit too late to be crying about proprietary content now.
It's especially late when stopping DRM in HTML5 won't actually stop the content problem. Sites will just keep using plugins like Flash and Silverlight, and we'll still be in the exact same situation. At least writing the DRM in Javascript means it should run multiplatform, but it seems people would rather fight a small advancement if they can't have the large advancement they want, leaving us in the current miserable situation we're in.