First, look at how long it took before CSS 2 became supported widely enough on browsers so that web developers could actually make use of it. That's probably about how long it'll take before HTML 5 becomes widely supported enough to be able to challenge Flash.
Next, consider how many flash objects have been built already, and recognize that they're most likely not going away. While you're at it, consider how many sites are built out of HTML 4 or XHTML 1.x, and consider that many if not most of these are not going away either, but may still need to deliver a flash-like experience.
So, maybe in 20-25 years?
Keep in mind, too, that as long as the W3C continues to advance the standards at the glacial pace that they have been, that it will leave the door open for proprietary solutions that do more to supplant the open standards. W3C runs a serious risk of becoming irrelevant if they are not able to provide progress on the open standards that we rely upon for the open WWW. If Flash or, gob forbid, Silverlight eats their lunch, it'll only be because they failed to get there in a reasonable amount of time, and developers got sick of waiting around to build the next generation web.
The cost of fixing all the bugs in your program and then being sure you fixed them all is way too high compared to the cost of having a few users hit some bugs they won't care about.
I think it also depends on how much it costs to remove the bugs. Often times, the small bugs that people are more likely to accept or tolerate are also very easy to fix. When the cost of fixing the bug is very low, it should be a no-brainer to do it. If on the other hand the bug is expensive to fix -- requiring a complete redesign and re-coding, then if the bug is not severe it may well be better to leave it in.
I remember using what was basically a giant plastic sheet of bubble wrap to help increase the solar gain of our swimming pool, and keep the water a more comfortable temperature than it otherwise would have been.
They generally do, and it's quite easy to determine whether the manual is present before you buy if you're in the store. If you buy through their website, they guarantee that the game comes to you complete, at least in terms of disc, manual, and case.
GameStop has no control over the fact that the codes are single-use. That's completely up to the publisher. Sue them.
GameStop sells used games at reduced prices, reflecting that the games are used. If a game doesn't have a manual, or has a case that is missing the artwork panel, they still sell it. It might cost less. If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly? I would think that their pricing assumes that the DLC code is not good, since it cannot be relied or proved good.
That's it, case closed.
Publishers: wake up and make the DLC codes re-usable. Forget the used market for a second. If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own.
Give him a misdemeanor sentence of several hours per victim, stacked, then throw in a couple of felony charges with concurrent sentences so he'll have a felony record.
It amounts to the same amount of time, but when someone looks at his rap sheet he'll see millions of convictions on his record.
That means they'd have to try and convict him on millions of charges. The paperwork for that alone would kill the court system. Imagine having to read the ruling at the decision hearing. It'd take weeks.
See, we just need to understand that global climate change isn't good or bad. It's both. It solves problems and creates them. We just have to accept that it will happen, and continue to do whatever we're doing. No need to change anything, just ride out the changes. We can live without coral and fish. It'll be fine. Because now we have less land to fight over. Which will result in less conflict because we'll be able to peacefully come to agreements about how to divide the less amount of remaining land that we now have. See? It all balances out.
I sincerely hope that Facebook does not prevail here. If they do, then the next thing that we'll have to deal with is condom manufacturers getting into trouble due to blocking syphilis. We really don't need that. I hope Facebook's legal department thinks about this and reconsiders.
I think this is an indicator that a lot of people would like to own/operate a business, and have an entrepreneurial spirit, but are too bogged by the realities of risk and especially legal burden to carry out their entrepreneurial instinct in real life. Imagine how many jobs we could create if people felt safe enough to be able to play these games in the real world.
That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to/., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..."...
But you didn't state it is not relevant *TO YOU* you stated it was not relevant *AT ALL*.
Not to be pedantic about it, but I stated that I wasn't sure that CDs are still a relevant media today. not that they aren't relevant.
You next follow up with a second statement saying I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still." (I assume that this is where your claim that this is your opinion comes from). Followed by another inaccurate statement about solid state media (solid state does not even have a single percentage point in the market yet).
Fair enough; I really am guilty of lumping "solid state" media in with hard drives. I didn't mean to, but I kindof forgot that most iPods aren't flash-based. I probably should have said "user-writeable" media.
I have no idea on figures, but I have to assume if you added up all the storage on iPods and flash-based mp3 players that it would be more than 1% of the market, though. Granted, a lot of iPods have tiny hard drives in them, not solid state storage. I also meant to include hard drives in home media servers and NAS solutions, as well, just to give a better idea of where I was coming from.
I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today.
I should also mention that they DO still sell 8 tracks:
I dunno, I think that article does more to support my case than it does the case that 8-tracks still would sell if they were discounted. The Cheap Trick album is $30 on 8-track format, which is by far the most expensive way to purchase the album. I'd really love to see the total sales figures for that album, broken down by format.
Also, that cnet article mentions that "major labels" stopped producing the format in 1988, but that "entrepreneurial souls" have kept making them. Basically, it's indeed a dead format, and a tiny number of 8-track fetishists are keeping it alive in niches. Just like there are people who own and maintain Model T's.
Even the cnet editors admit they didn't know the 8-track format was still offered. Which, it isn't really -- try ordering a major label release on 8-track from a mainstream retailer. Except for one Cheap Trick album and whatever the aforementioned "entrepreneurial souls" are putting out, you won't find any for sale anywhere.
When you describe someone as a "soul" it kindof connotes "dead" to me, though;)
Lastly I would disagree with the premise that the CD is dieing. It will be here for the next 10-20 years.
I don't actually disagree with that -- CDs will be around as long as there are players. As long as DVD and Blu Ray players exist, they'll likely continue to support reading/writing CDs. And if the next format after Blu Ray is the same size spinning laser-read disc, I bet CDs will be playable and writeable on it, too.
So at the very least all the zillions of CDs that exist will be playable, and the format will certainly not die in that sense.
Not dying is not the same as remaining relevant, though. What counts as relevant is probably a matter of debate, and if the 55% figure is accurate perhaps I'm a bit ahead of my time in saying it yet, but to me it's pretty clear that the future is network distribution, not physical distribution.
I should point out, I have zero plans to buy a Blu Ray player for watching movies. I may or may not get one in my next computer, but if I do it'll likely be due to it being
That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to/., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..." I think that's reasonable. If you want to disagree, that's fine, but you could have been just as effective by citing the 55% figure and skipped on the douchebaggery.
I haven't bought a CD in over 10 years, apart from indy releases burned at home by local bands.
I would have preferred to buy lossless encoded downloads from them, but that wasn't something that they offered, so I bought CDs, ripped them, and put them on my music player.
I ripped my 800+ CD collection and put it on my NAS at home, and play that through my network to my stereo system. I fully intend never to buy another music CD unless that's absolutely the only way to get a lossless copy of the music.
This would have been a great strategy for the late 1990's, when the CD was still a relevant media (and, for that matter, when consumers were demanding that prices be lowered, both through their words and through their actions -- which the industry by and large ignored completely).
I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today. CD's don't have the same analog appeal that vinyl records to, either. I expect that eventually they'll just stop making CDs, and all music will be distributed via the network.
This price reduction merely indicates that we're a little bit closer to that day. I doubt it'll do much to boost sales at this point.
What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia? Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater? Sounds unfair.
It would be unfair... On the other hand, if you altered wikipedia to agree with what you wrote in your own paper, you might also be doing something unfair. If your additions legitimately improve the quality of the article, that's one thing. But I can also see a student updating wikipedia, and then pointing to it and saying "Oh look, wikipedia confirms what I'm saying in my paper."
At the most, a SETI search could have detected intelligent, broadcasting in cleartext life at a range of 50 light years. That's not terribly far. And halve that if we're sending out a message and waiting on a return.
Slashdot Mirror
First, look at how long it took before CSS 2 became supported widely enough on browsers so that web developers could actually make use of it. That's probably about how long it'll take before HTML 5 becomes widely supported enough to be able to challenge Flash.
Next, consider how many flash objects have been built already, and recognize that they're most likely not going away.
While you're at it, consider how many sites are built out of HTML 4 or XHTML 1.x, and consider that many if not most of these are not going away either, but may still need to deliver a flash-like experience.
So, maybe in 20-25 years?
Keep in mind, too, that as long as the W3C continues to advance the standards at the glacial pace that they have been, that it will leave the door open for proprietary solutions that do more to supplant the open standards. W3C runs a serious risk of becoming irrelevant if they are not able to provide progress on the open standards that we rely upon for the open WWW. If Flash or, gob forbid, Silverlight eats their lunch, it'll only be because they failed to get there in a reasonable amount of time, and developers got sick of waiting around to build the next generation web.
Time to migrate to a new protocol. What's next, FTP?
I think it also depends on how much it costs to remove the bugs. Often times, the small bugs that people are more likely to accept or tolerate are also very easy to fix. When the cost of fixing the bug is very low, it should be a no-brainer to do it. If on the other hand the bug is expensive to fix -- requiring a complete redesign and re-coding, then if the bug is not severe it may well be better to leave it in.
I don't merely want to "cure" people. I want to advance people. Give us infravision.
I remember using what was basically a giant plastic sheet of bubble wrap to help increase the solar gain of our swimming pool, and keep the water a more comfortable temperature than it otherwise would have been.
They generally do, and it's quite easy to determine whether the manual is present before you buy if you're in the store. If you buy through their website, they guarantee that the game comes to you complete, at least in terms of disc, manual, and case.
GameStop has no control over the fact that the codes are single-use. That's completely up to the publisher. Sue them.
GameStop sells used games at reduced prices, reflecting that the games are used. If a game doesn't have a manual, or has a case that is missing the artwork panel, they still sell it. It might cost less. If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly? I would think that their pricing assumes that the DLC code is not good, since it cannot be relied or proved good.
That's it, case closed.
Publishers: wake up and make the DLC codes re-usable. Forget the used market for a second. If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own.
Don't give him 2 20-year concurrent sentences.
Give him a misdemeanor sentence of several hours per victim, stacked, then throw in a couple of felony charges with concurrent sentences so he'll have a felony record.
It amounts to the same amount of time, but when someone looks at his rap sheet he'll see millions of convictions on his record.
That means they'd have to try and convict him on millions of charges. The paperwork for that alone would kill the court system. Imagine having to read the ruling at the decision hearing. It'd take weeks.
See, we just need to understand that global climate change isn't good or bad. It's both. It solves problems and creates them. We just have to accept that it will happen, and continue to do whatever we're doing. No need to change anything, just ride out the changes. We can live without coral and fish. It'll be fine. Because now we have less land to fight over. Which will result in less conflict because we'll be able to peacefully come to agreements about how to divide the less amount of remaining land that we now have. See? It all balances out.
I sincerely hope that Facebook does not prevail here. If they do, then the next thing that we'll have to deal with is condom manufacturers getting into trouble due to blocking syphilis. We really don't need that. I hope Facebook's legal department thinks about this and reconsiders.
Hello. My name is Miguel de Icaza. You killed .NET. Prepare to die.
Because, somewhere, someone thinks that they had to abort the boy in order to regrow him with his own stem cells, and that is wrong.
GPS will tell you where you are... if you have a GPS.
Radar will tell you what's out there... as long as it reflects RADAR waves.
I'd say RADAR is a whole lot more useful than GPS in avoiding collisions. Do you think that flock of birds has a GPS? How about that meteor?
I think this is an indicator that a lot of people would like to own/operate a business, and have an entrepreneurial spirit, but are too bogged by the realities of risk and especially legal burden to carry out their entrepreneurial instinct in real life. Imagine how many jobs we could create if people felt safe enough to be able to play these games in the real world.
OMGPonies!
That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to /., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..." ...
But you didn't state it is not relevant *TO YOU* you stated it was not relevant *AT ALL*.
Not to be pedantic about it, but I stated that I wasn't sure that CDs are still a relevant media today. not that they aren't relevant.
You next follow up with a second statement saying I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still." (I assume that this is where your claim that this is your opinion comes from). Followed by another inaccurate statement about solid state media (solid state does not even have a single percentage point in the market yet).
Fair enough; I really am guilty of lumping "solid state" media in with hard drives. I didn't mean to, but I kindof forgot that most iPods aren't flash-based. I probably should have said "user-writeable" media.
I have no idea on figures, but I have to assume if you added up all the storage on iPods and flash-based mp3 players that it would be more than 1% of the market, though. Granted, a lot of iPods have tiny hard drives in them, not solid state storage. I also meant to include hard drives in home media servers and NAS solutions, as well, just to give a better idea of where I was coming from.
I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today.
I should also mention that they DO still sell 8 tracks:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10287864-1.html
I dunno, I think that article does more to support my case than it does the case that 8-tracks still would sell if they were discounted. The Cheap Trick album is $30 on 8-track format, which is by far the most expensive way to purchase the album. I'd really love to see the total sales figures for that album, broken down by format.
Also, that cnet article mentions that "major labels" stopped producing the format in 1988, but that "entrepreneurial souls" have kept making them. Basically, it's indeed a dead format, and a tiny number of 8-track fetishists are keeping it alive in niches. Just like there are people who own and maintain Model T's.
Even the cnet editors admit they didn't know the 8-track format was still offered. Which, it isn't really -- try ordering a major label release on 8-track from a mainstream retailer. Except for one Cheap Trick album and whatever the aforementioned "entrepreneurial souls" are putting out, you won't find any for sale anywhere.
When you describe someone as a "soul" it kindof connotes "dead" to me, though;)
Lastly I would disagree with the premise that the CD is dieing. It will be here for the next 10-20 years.
I don't actually disagree with that -- CDs will be around as long as there are players. As long as DVD and Blu Ray players exist, they'll likely continue to support reading/writing CDs. And if the next format after Blu Ray is the same size spinning laser-read disc, I bet CDs will be playable and writeable on it, too.
So at the very least all the zillions of CDs that exist will be playable, and the format will certainly not die in that sense.
Not dying is not the same as remaining relevant, though. What counts as relevant is probably a matter of debate, and if the 55% figure is accurate perhaps I'm a bit ahead of my time in saying it yet, but to me it's pretty clear that the future is network distribution, not physical distribution.
I should point out, I have zero plans to buy a Blu Ray player for watching movies. I may or may not get one in my next computer, but if I do it'll likely be due to it being
That's why I don't think CDs are relevant to me. I didn't go out and do a market analysis study before I posted to /., so that's why I qualified my statement with "I'm not sure that..." I think that's reasonable. If you want to disagree, that's fine, but you could have been just as effective by citing the 55% figure and skipped on the douchebaggery.
I haven't bought a CD in over 10 years, apart from indy releases burned at home by local bands.
I would have preferred to buy lossless encoded downloads from them, but that wasn't something that they offered, so I bought CDs, ripped them, and put them on my music player.
I ripped my 800+ CD collection and put it on my NAS at home, and play that through my network to my stereo system. I fully intend never to buy another music CD unless that's absolutely the only way to get a lossless copy of the music.
This would have been a great strategy for the late 1990's, when the CD was still a relevant media (and, for that matter, when consumers were demanding that prices be lowered, both through their words and through their actions -- which the industry by and large ignored completely).
I'm not sure I'd call CDs relevant still. We've moved on to solid state media, writeable storage decoupled from the content. You could discount 8-track tapes and they wouldn't sell today. CD's don't have the same analog appeal that vinyl records to, either. I expect that eventually they'll just stop making CDs, and all music will be distributed via the network.
This price reduction merely indicates that we're a little bit closer to that day. I doubt it'll do much to boost sales at this point.
The sequel will feature a new dragon, named Aesydrayne, and a battle involving six armies, and a ring that makes you completely odorless.
What if I write an essay for my class, and then include parts of it into Wikipedia? Will the automated cheating detectors mark me as a cheater? Sounds unfair.
It would be unfair... On the other hand, if you altered wikipedia to agree with what you wrote in your own paper, you might also be doing something unfair. If your additions legitimately improve the quality of the article, that's one thing. But I can also see a student updating wikipedia, and then pointing to it and saying "Oh look, wikipedia confirms what I'm saying in my paper."
At the most, a SETI search could have detected intelligent, broadcasting in cleartext life at a range of 50 light years. That's not terribly far. And halve that if we're sending out a message and waiting on a return.
Now, I can finally stop waiting and get to programming my Commodore 64!
I Can't Stop Driving My Toyota!
That reminds me of the time I tried to order a magnetbox television from my sorny laptop.
http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone+brick
I didn't say I have PROOF, I said "I have heard of."