Flash (Easy to develop for) HTML5/Canvas/JS (Not so easy to develop for)
Though I agree that if someone releases a tool to make the latter as easy to develop as the former, they'll probably hit it big. Adobe would be wise to be the first to do it.
This is more than retheming or replacing sprites. The other game characters move, act, and attack like their original game counterparts. Belmont whips and throws axes (and has terrible jumping controls.) Samus can roll into a ball, drop bombs, even double-jump with the bombs. The Contra guy is really the best, though. Feels just like you're playing Contra.
The short of it is that Adobe's tools for Flash creation are simply outstanding. HTML5/Canvas/JS is like Assembly compared to it. I doubt very seriously that Super Mario Crossover couldn't be implemented in them, but who would want to?
This. Or even an iPod Touch, if you only want to use it at home. Then they can complain to Steve J. about the inability to install whatever they want.
Unfortunately, you have to pick the right device. Some devices can be remotely wiped, and the IT department may demand the password to do so if you check mail from home.
The problem is that I'm not getting training in using my tools better--I'm getting training in making them function at all! Each time a failed upgrade causes e.g. apt to crap itself (happened twice in recent memory), I now have to track down why that is and how to fix it. Using apt is not part of my job--it's a necessary requirement for keeping my workstation up to date if I use Linux.
In 3 years of using a Mac, I've had 0 updates cause me to have to stop and troubleshoot.
Actually, I use FreeBSD for my servers. I'm getting a little bit frustrated with ports, to be honest. It seems like every other time I upgrade (I only upgrade when there's a vulnerability) some number of ports fail, and there's no mention of a problem in UPDATING.
Also, the recent (well, last year or two) libtool bump was really irritating. I wish there was a real package system rather than just building packages on another machine, rsyncing (or nfs mounting) over, and using portupgrade -PP.
I don't think I'd be interested in using FreeBSD on a workstation due to the above problems. At least with my servers, I've got dev machines that I can easily test on. Building/configuring a dev environment for your workstation seems a bit like overkill.
If you can make it work at home, you can make it work at work. Plus you'll likely be more productive if you keep using the same environment all day.
If I have to spend a lot of time making something work, that's not productive. On my own time, I'm allowed to be unproductive. At work, if I'm spending time fiddling around making my OS run, I'm not doing real work.
Probably because he doesn't want to actually manage his computer.
I love Linux and run it at home, but I regularly have to tweak things or they simply don't work. Macs are a good middle-ground between functionality and ease-of-use.
The feds don't typically use this particular power. That's why AZ enacted the law. But a neat little piece of the law allows citizens to sue the police department if they don't appropriately deal with the illegal alien problem.
There are a lot of bad laws on the books that aren't enforced. I think that they shouldn't be there, but the next best thing is that people just never use them. In AZ, we don't know how things will turn out--whether the law will be used or not--but the lawsuit clause is reason enough to take a second look at the bill as well as to assume that it will be enforced, at least to start.
It's almost certain that American citizens will be detained under this law until their status can be proven since: a) Carrying ID is not required of American Citizens b) Driver's Licenses don't prove citizenship c) Arizona has a large number of latinos d) The ratio of latino citizens to illegal aliens in Arizona is about 2:1.
A driver's license provides identification, but not proof of citizenship. I don't know how easily it is to get immigration status from the DMV in Arizona. In my state, it's not part of the data that's tracked.
But more to the point, you're horribly wrong when you say:
A cop can only fucking stop you for committing a crime.
A cop can detain you for almost any reason. In all 50 states, you can be detained if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are about to commit a crime or that you have already committed a crime. In most of those states, the burden of proof is on the detainee (i.e. police testimony carries an immense amount of weight.) I'm not even saying that an officer is going to make something up in order to detain you--they could legitimately think that tripping over something in the sidewalk means that you're intoxicated (PI is illegal in most states) or that your behavior was "suspicious" when you took a shortcut down an alley. Getting a tad more malicious, they could detain you for jaywalking, loitering, or any other number of "crimes" that are selectively enforced. While these are still crimes, they tend to be enforced only on certain groups of people. In Arizona, New Mexico, some parts of Texas, and some parts of California, laws like that tend to be enforced more regularly (per capita) on latinos.
Are you an American citizen? If you were stopped in Arizona for a busted tail light, how would you prove that you were (assuming the answer is yes)?
Of course the truth is, if you're not hispanic-looking and don't have a latino name, they probably won't demand that you verify your status. But amazingly, racism only a secondary problem. The main problem is that they may ask an American citizen to show proof that they are in the country legally, and Americans have no legal responsibility to carry that kind of documentation. So now what? Minor traffic tickets can be used to arrest people until they can provide a birth certificate?
This is probably one of the most ill-conceived laws to come about in recent times.
I knew people who did this for the fourth Star Wars movie. They were so excited about it that they didn't want to know anything going in. I imagine it was pretty tough for them.
"Like" is used in several other social-media websites, though. I could see that being more of a move to standardize on a term.
My question is have they removed the ability to change group names? It's pretty inevitable that someone will form a group "Kelly Clarkson is hot!", gets a few thousand users, and then changes it to "anal sex with men." Then, on each member's profile page...."RemoteControl69 likes anal sex with men."
Okay, I'm confused. What do you think Google is doing here? Define "listening to broadcasts".
It should be obvious. Your router is broadcasting, and Google is listening (and recording some of it.)
But my point doesn't even necessarily apply only to Google. You could take them out of the equation and my point stands.
According to federal law, you are generally allowed to receive public broadcasts (IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.) But this law was formed when the speed of data was much slower--when it was infeasible for a single entity to listen to EVERYTHING and aggregate it. It's worth revisiting whether or not we, as a society, want this to be acceptable.
Of course, it's only an issue because there's already a jurisdiction at the federal level for this. One could argue that the FCC has too much power and shouldn't be allowed to control such things in the first place, but that's out of the scope of my point.
It's true that this seems legal in the US. However there are lots of things which are legal because they seem harmless in the small scale, but which become privacy concerns on the large scale. The current laws don't deal with situations like this.
An example is police tailing. Police are allowed to follow someone without practically any oversight. This is self-limiting because it takes manpower, which is a highly limited resource. However courts have stated that surreptitiously monitoring someone's car with a GPS is equivalent to police tailing. This is something which requires considerably less manpower. Tailing with GPS is no longer self-limiting. If this were done on a large-scale, lots of people would consider it an invasion of privacy.
An entity listening to broadcasts in the 2.4Ghz range in a small area is probably not a problem. An entity with the ability to listen to these broadcasts across the entire US? That's something worth rethinking. Maybe it's a problem, and maybe it's not. I really don't know. But due to the scale, it's a slightly different situation.
No need for a flame suit--this is true to an extent.
But there are caveats. Are you using.Net? If so, does the user have.Net installed? How close are you getting to the hardware? You might start tickling a bug in a whitebox graphics card driver that someone installed. The wide variety of users combined with the ability to install Windows on a wide variety of hardware leads to an impossibly large combination of hardware and software that you have to think about. So while it's true that development should be easier for Windows, exhaustive testing is nigh-impossible. It's just not possible to test with every combination of patchlevel+hardware+drivers.
The more abstract you get, the easier it is to test and develop. Android is a great example of this. There aren't that many hardware combinations, and it's highly abstracted such that you're not likely to hit a weird driver bug. The iPhone/iPad is pretty much the pinnacle of this.
The same could be said of televisions. Does Grossman own a TV?
Or radios. Does Grossman own a radio?
Why are you disappointed with the iPad due to its difficulty with creating content? What were you expecting, exactly? If it doesn't suit your needs, don't buy one. They aren't replacing computers, you know....
Caring about what other people think of you is a childish attitude to have.
No, it's a pragmatic attitude. Because in a world where a potential employer has instant access to almost any public record (and possibly some private ones) attached to your name, you'd be a fool to "not give a shit" that your name is attached to a porn case involving legal drawings of underage children.
Yeah, yeah, you can pull the "Well if they're going to not hire me for that, I don't want to work there!" bullshit. When you're waiting in line for food stamps, I'm sure your "strength" will get you through.
Slashdot Mirror
Semantics.
Flash (Easy to develop for)
HTML5/Canvas/JS (Not so easy to develop for)
Though I agree that if someone releases a tool to make the latter as easy to develop as the former, they'll probably hit it big. Adobe would be wise to be the first to do it.
This is more than retheming or replacing sprites. The other game characters move, act, and attack like their original game counterparts. Belmont whips and throws axes (and has terrible jumping controls.) Samus can roll into a ball, drop bombs, even double-jump with the bombs. The Contra guy is really the best, though. Feels just like you're playing Contra.
The short of it is that Adobe's tools for Flash creation are simply outstanding. HTML5/Canvas/JS is like Assembly compared to it. I doubt very seriously that Super Mario Crossover couldn't be implemented in them, but who would want to?
This. Or even an iPod Touch, if you only want to use it at home. Then they can complain to Steve J. about the inability to install whatever they want.
Unfortunately, you have to pick the right device. Some devices can be remotely wiped, and the IT department may demand the password to do so if you check mail from home.
The problem is that I'm not getting training in using my tools better--I'm getting training in making them function at all! Each time a failed upgrade causes e.g. apt to crap itself (happened twice in recent memory), I now have to track down why that is and how to fix it. Using apt is not part of my job--it's a necessary requirement for keeping my workstation up to date if I use Linux.
In 3 years of using a Mac, I've had 0 updates cause me to have to stop and troubleshoot.
Actually, I use FreeBSD for my servers. I'm getting a little bit frustrated with ports, to be honest. It seems like every other time I upgrade (I only upgrade when there's a vulnerability) some number of ports fail, and there's no mention of a problem in UPDATING.
Also, the recent (well, last year or two) libtool bump was really irritating. I wish there was a real package system rather than just building packages on another machine, rsyncing (or nfs mounting) over, and using portupgrade -PP.
I don't think I'd be interested in using FreeBSD on a workstation due to the above problems. At least with my servers, I've got dev machines that I can easily test on. Building/configuring a dev environment for your workstation seems a bit like overkill.
As I said, I just want my workstation to work.
If you can make it work at home, you can make it work at work.
Plus you'll likely be more productive if you keep using the same environment all day.
If I have to spend a lot of time making something work, that's not productive. On my own time, I'm allowed to be unproductive. At work, if I'm spending time fiddling around making my OS run, I'm not doing real work.
Probably because he doesn't want to actually manage his computer.
I love Linux and run it at home, but I regularly have to tweak things or they simply don't work. Macs are a good middle-ground between functionality and ease-of-use.
Or you could have a license from a state which doesn't require proof of citizenship.
Or you could not have a license at all. Shocking, I know, but not everyone drives a car.
Or you could just not have your license with you.
There are dozens of reasons that a citizen might not have proof of citizenship or a driver's license on them at all times.
The feds don't typically use this particular power. That's why AZ enacted the law. But a neat little piece of the law allows citizens to sue the police department if they don't appropriately deal with the illegal alien problem.
There are a lot of bad laws on the books that aren't enforced. I think that they shouldn't be there, but the next best thing is that people just never use them. In AZ, we don't know how things will turn out--whether the law will be used or not--but the lawsuit clause is reason enough to take a second look at the bill as well as to assume that it will be enforced, at least to start.
It's almost certain that American citizens will be detained under this law until their status can be proven since:
a) Carrying ID is not required of American Citizens
b) Driver's Licenses don't prove citizenship
c) Arizona has a large number of latinos
d) The ratio of latino citizens to illegal aliens in Arizona is about 2:1.
A driver's license provides identification, but not proof of citizenship. I don't know how easily it is to get immigration status from the DMV in Arizona. In my state, it's not part of the data that's tracked.
But more to the point, you're horribly wrong when you say:
A cop can only fucking stop you for committing a crime.
A cop can detain you for almost any reason. In all 50 states, you can be detained if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are about to commit a crime or that you have already committed a crime. In most of those states, the burden of proof is on the detainee (i.e. police testimony carries an immense amount of weight.) I'm not even saying that an officer is going to make something up in order to detain you--they could legitimately think that tripping over something in the sidewalk means that you're intoxicated (PI is illegal in most states) or that your behavior was "suspicious" when you took a shortcut down an alley. Getting a tad more malicious, they could detain you for jaywalking, loitering, or any other number of "crimes" that are selectively enforced. While these are still crimes, they tend to be enforced only on certain groups of people. In Arizona, New Mexico, some parts of Texas, and some parts of California, laws like that tend to be enforced more regularly (per capita) on latinos.
Are you an American citizen? If you were stopped in Arizona for a busted tail light, how would you prove that you were (assuming the answer is yes)?
Of course the truth is, if you're not hispanic-looking and don't have a latino name, they probably won't demand that you verify your status. But amazingly, racism only a secondary problem. The main problem is that they may ask an American citizen to show proof that they are in the country legally, and Americans have no legal responsibility to carry that kind of documentation. So now what? Minor traffic tickets can be used to arrest people until they can provide a birth certificate?
This is probably one of the most ill-conceived laws to come about in recent times.
So? They still may be asking natural-born citizens who have no legal responsibility to carry proof of their nationality to produce such proof.
I knew people who did this for the fourth Star Wars movie. They were so excited about it that they didn't want to know anything going in. I imagine it was pretty tough for them.
If we're going to be pedantic, it's H.264.
So you were using Bitlocker instead of EFS then, right?
and this is why a high school level economics education is not sufficient to properly understand market forces.
I wish I had mod points. I was thinking the exact same thing.
"Like" is used in several other social-media websites, though. I could see that being more of a move to standardize on a term.
My question is have they removed the ability to change group names? It's pretty inevitable that someone will form a group "Kelly Clarkson is hot!", gets a few thousand users, and then changes it to "anal sex with men." Then, on each member's profile page...."RemoteControl69 likes anal sex with men."
Okay, I'm confused. What do you think Google is doing here? Define "listening to broadcasts".
It should be obvious. Your router is broadcasting, and Google is listening (and recording some of it.)
But my point doesn't even necessarily apply only to Google. You could take them out of the equation and my point stands.
According to federal law, you are generally allowed to receive public broadcasts (IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.) But this law was formed when the speed of data was much slower--when it was infeasible for a single entity to listen to EVERYTHING and aggregate it. It's worth revisiting whether or not we, as a society, want this to be acceptable.
Of course, it's only an issue because there's already a jurisdiction at the federal level for this. One could argue that the FCC has too much power and shouldn't be allowed to control such things in the first place, but that's out of the scope of my point.
It's true that this seems legal in the US. However there are lots of things which are legal because they seem harmless in the small scale, but which become privacy concerns on the large scale. The current laws don't deal with situations like this.
An example is police tailing. Police are allowed to follow someone without practically any oversight. This is self-limiting because it takes manpower, which is a highly limited resource. However courts have stated that surreptitiously monitoring someone's car with a GPS is equivalent to police tailing. This is something which requires considerably less manpower. Tailing with GPS is no longer self-limiting. If this were done on a large-scale, lots of people would consider it an invasion of privacy.
An entity listening to broadcasts in the 2.4Ghz range in a small area is probably not a problem. An entity with the ability to listen to these broadcasts across the entire US? That's something worth rethinking. Maybe it's a problem, and maybe it's not. I really don't know. But due to the scale, it's a slightly different situation.
I doubt they'll cut people off, but they could raise the prices. Also, ARM may have some patents that Apple would like to use or to leverage.
No need for a flame suit--this is true to an extent.
But there are caveats. Are you using .Net? If so, does the user have .Net installed? How close are you getting to the hardware? You might start tickling a bug in a whitebox graphics card driver that someone installed. The wide variety of users combined with the ability to install Windows on a wide variety of hardware leads to an impossibly large combination of hardware and software that you have to think about. So while it's true that development should be easier for Windows, exhaustive testing is nigh-impossible. It's just not possible to test with every combination of patchlevel+hardware+drivers.
The more abstract you get, the easier it is to test and develop. Android is a great example of this. There aren't that many hardware combinations, and it's highly abstracted such that you're not likely to hit a weird driver bug. The iPhone/iPad is pretty much the pinnacle of this.
The same could be said of televisions. Does Grossman own a TV?
Or radios. Does Grossman own a radio?
Why are you disappointed with the iPad due to its difficulty with creating content? What were you expecting, exactly? If it doesn't suit your needs, don't buy one. They aren't replacing computers, you know....
Caring about what other people think of you is a childish attitude to have.
No, it's a pragmatic attitude. Because in a world where a potential employer has instant access to almost any public record (and possibly some private ones) attached to your name, you'd be a fool to "not give a shit" that your name is attached to a porn case involving legal drawings of underage children.
Yeah, yeah, you can pull the "Well if they're going to not hire me for that, I don't want to work there!" bullshit. When you're waiting in line for food stamps, I'm sure your "strength" will get you through.
Just wait until CSI starts using this technology. Then it will be open-and-shut in the mind of any Juror.
Wiki the CSI effect.