And yet, he put in lap times within 3 seconds of a professional racer, and didn't hurt anybody.
There seems to be a theory of life that nobody should be allowed to do anything if they haven't been hand-trained by a professional. How did anything get started? Do stuff. Do stuff for yourself. Think through the risks, consider all of the angles possible, and then bloody well do impressive things.
You think everyone that is going to fly a remote-controlled airplane should go through an instructor? Did you drop a sippy cup on your toe as a child? Go design and build some potato cannons, or hack together an electric vehicle from parts, or build your own garage. As much as I am a nanny-state hugging liberal, at some point the only person responsible for your life is you.
Anyone with a car can race. Some land is helpful, whether you own it or can find it. And, of course, it's probably better to race with a car you don't plan on driving a lot, especially if you're rallying. Alternatively, it's about 40 bucks to bring your car for a lap at open track days.
You can spend about 1 grand on a 2nd hand car. Alternatively, you can get a new kart for about that much.
Racing cars is not just the realm of the rich. Most of the racing in LA happens from lower-to-middle class income people.
I'm not a huge fan of RIM. It never seemed to get more usable than a baseline Treo. Which, don't get me wrong, wasn't a bad phone. But RIM made some befuddling option layout choices. And worse than that, they really only had about 5 functions, but they had about 30 or 40 input icons.
Blackberrys were not as bad as Nokias, by any stretch of the imagination. They had bloat problems, and were in love with proprietary technologies that were only useful to about 0.1% of their user base. Ultimately, I never found them to be as usable as Palm-phones. Palm never seemed to have the money to dilute their interface with useless options. But Palm's interface was basically Windows 3.1, with issues jimmying that complexity into a system where a TCP-IP stack was a luxury that barely fit.
The crotch bomber was Nigerian, not Arab. Timothy and the Unibomber were both US and white. Jim David Adkisson was both white and in his late 50's. The McCamy Law Firm bomber and the Well's Fargo bomber were also white.
There are active terror groups in Spain, Ireland, Japan, China, India, The Former USSR, etc etc. Profiling just Arabs leaves out huge swaths of potential killers.
Is it significantly more unclean to have a dog sniff your bag, or to have a 55 year old union worker feel up your junk? When has the TSA ever cared about pissing off everyone in the country? They take naked pictures of your genitals for crying out loud.
I was on a thoroughly-check-every-time watch list in college. For what reason, I have no idea. I wasn't politically active, wasn't religious, and didn't hate government intrusion more than most college students. But over the course of 24 cross-country flights, I was "randomly" searched 30 times. Yes, they searched me on several connecting flights, even though you don't search baggage on connecting flights.
The government at the time swore up and down that these lists did not exist. Of course, that was a lie. They're more open about it now, but the idea that they're not doing background checks is laughable.
I think the problem is the weakest link in your security chain determines your security. For example, friends of mine (myself included) routinely accidentally bring knives through the x-ray scanners. Looking obsessively for the slightest sharp object on your body is foolish if they're just letting swiss army knives through the Xray. Similarly, obsessing over explosive materials in your carry-on isn't going to help if they keep allowing it through the checked baggage. You could wire up a lithium battery to explode on a plane pretty easily, but nobody is going to stop you from bringing your laptop on board.
It's just like how they would confiscate Zippos or matches on board, but allowed butane lighters. That provides exactly zero additional security over allowing all lighters onto planes.
And ultimately, we all live with risk. If the risk of dying in the car on the way to the airport is greater than the risk of dying on an airplane, is it really worth throwing more resources at? What about bridges, or nuclear power plants, or dams?
Smartphones in the US were painfully abysmal before the iPhone. Every phone I owned before the iPhone deserved to be immediately flushed down a toilet. And I owned most of them. The stuff was GOD AWFUL. I remember using a friend's Nokia which was essentially a flip-out camera with a phone embedded into it, and it took 1/3rd of an hour of searching and 7 menu clicks to take a photo.
The iPhone advanced phone interfaces and technology tremendously. Tremendously. We're in a far better phone world because of it. Is it horribly locked down? Definitely. But it also works really well. Sometimes making the world an actual better place is enough, even if you're not vegan while doing it.
You can make a game 20% more immersive by increasing visual fidelity, but you can't put enough lipstick on it to call it art. The concepts that made Shadow of the Colossus art could have been executed on a SNES. There is a 2D flash Portal that still feels exactly like Portal.
There is a trap in there: Visuals always make something *better*, therefore if we polish the visuals enough the game can be any arbitrary level of good. And that's just not true. You have to have a core, a soul, that makes it appealing on a human level. That's not going to be true of Crysis. Don't get me wrong, Crysis was fun. But it was bubblegum. Half-Life 2 looked amazing, but it also had the gravity gun, a story, and an eerie flip on the usual hero mythos.
To be fair, developing on a PC is DAMNED HARD. To extend your analogy:
You have to build a house. You don't know what bricks you have, what materials the walls will be made of, or even the amount of space you have to put the house in. You have to build the house in such a way as to take advantage of a 512 mb lot, or an 8gb lot. The floors might be made by nVidia, ATI, or a prefab floor by intel. Each room might be bigger or smaller than you thought.
So you've gone from a console, where you know EXACTLY the dimensions, building materials, etc of the place you're building, to one where you're building an abstracted concept of a game that is supposed to build itself from available materials and still function.
That is why you network with 2 providers and an emergency backup (such as satellite).
Note that if you are hosting your e-mail offsite, when the network well and truly goes down, everyone can whip out their phones and still work. But if your e-mail is local, nothing can get in or out. Similarly, if you have hosted services and your netlink goes down, wander over to Starbucks and keep going.
It really only makes sense to locally host high-bandwidth services, like file or version control servers. Anything else can be anywhere else.
It's a 20 person company. Do you really think he's going to have the proper power conditioning, cooling, and remote-access setup for lots of live servers for basic stuff like e-mail and chat?
Keep it as simple as possible. Don't use docking stations, as they will be useless the moment laptops change. Just have people use laptops. Bog standard local NTFS file server with Raid1 for safety, and backed up offsite. Use hosted exchange if they must have meeting requests, or Gmail if not. Chat over skype.
IT is not about finding the quirky, brilliant solution that configures *just so*. It's about finding the robust solutions that will continue to work pretty well more or less indefinitely. Intra-company communication via skype means that Skype is responsible for making sure the IM server stays up, not you. Or substitute gChat / your medium of choice. Obviously, if they're legally required to log you should bring that in-house.
In two years, the hardware will be a mess of different configurations. New people will want to bring in their own laptop. That carefully constructed network map with everyone allocated a specific IP tied to their login will be useless bunk. You will be on your second wireless router. A new hire has to be able to walk in with a laptop off the street, connect to your network as painlessly as possible, and go. Login to the intranet, the intranet has links to all the software they'll need, go. The router configurations are all DHCP, and where they aren't every bloody port and plug is labeled.
If your replacement had to replace something, could they? Could a new, slightly technical user set themselves up without paging you? KISS.
Aside from the "no other store" it's not much different than any other purchase you make online.
Except he's not talking about purchases. He's talking about installing software. If I need a backup software solution, I google around for a while, find some recommendations, compare some features, then go to the site of the person who makes what I want to try. Half of the time they're free, so I just install and try it out. Otherwise they likely have a demo to go for 30 days, or THEN I'll pull out a credit card and give cash. Really, the app store is like walking into Best Buy and purchasing something, whereas the way people get software has changed significantly since then.
There may be rules in place that the app developer had to abide with to get the app approved, such as the earlier VoIP over Wifi only restriction, which has since been lifted.
There is something like 30 restrictions, which change about 4 times per year. And what defines each restriction shifts constantly. You're not allowed to have porn, for example. Which Apple at times has used to ban end-user generated photo sharing apps and apps with entirely clothed women, but APPROVED a PLAYBOY app. You're not allowed to have parodies that include real people. Obama on a trampoline. You're not allowed to use any API's that are "unpublished." For a while they allowed wifi-sniffing and network tools apps, and recently reversed that and banned them all. They ban anything they consider distasteful or crass or pointless, yet they keep millions of fart apps up on the store. They've stuck good developers in limbo for years over random apps. And if anything the year-and-a-half ordeal with Google Voice has shown, they or their partners are not above creating new rules if they feel threatened. A video streaming app, for example, was rejected early on for using too much bandwidth, even though that was never a stated prerequisite.
And while it is great that they've finally officially published standards two months ago, that is yet another revision of the rules, which they've been revising constantly and turned the iPhone into a moving target. I had a few useful but easy to write apps that I wanted to write in Flash CS5's export function, for example, shortly before they banned it. Now that it is unbanned and no-longer supported by Adobe, I can't imagine I'll bother.
You can download and put whatever you want in media on your phone/iPod/iPad.
As long as that media isn't a flash game, or other game. Or requires plug-ins, such as Ogg Vorbis or Monkey Audio. Or, for that matter, video that hasn't been munged to Apple's specific format.
I'm on my second iPhone, and am eyeing an iPad. I love Apple's user interface designers, and feel that they deserve tremendous amounts of credit for pulling the US out of the Nokia-dominated dark ages of candybar phones and being tethered to our desks. But they need to open the platform. While I may not care for porn apps, they banned a good number of network tools that would genuinely help me in my daily life. And keeping Google Voice off their phone for a year and a half for no damned reason is just infuriating. They need to start treating their users like adults, or they risk losing us to Android.
They're probably also trying to figure out how to monetize it. Why bother with investing in differing phone systems and regulatory environments if you can't figure out how to keep the lights on?
For government websites, this should be required. For professional grade, established websites, this is definitely good practice. For everyone, though? If I wanted to create a quick website called "video rants," on which people have 30 seconds to rant on any topic they feel like, then vote on the best, convincing all of your users to subtitle their content might be enough to kill the site. I make independent videogames in flash. Sometimes this is a combination of Flash / HTML / CSS / Javascript and other technologies. Sometimes the line between website and videogame is very blurry. It's nearly impossible to make blind-accessible videogames that work for everyone, without limiting yourself to card or text-based games.
According to Facebook user stats, that's pretty small. It's 37th on the list of top Facebook countries. That constitutes less than 1/2 of 1% their users. That's not something you'd want to lose, but that's not something you'd risk a successful model to chase, either.
I find it ironic that we're spending american lives on bringing "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan, when our close friends the Saudis are a hugely oppressive monarchy.
My understanding is that trademark infringement and / or dilution are related to the likelyhood of causing confusion in the marketplace. Calling yourself "The funniest and lamest of facebook" in your logo is likely to clarify that the site in question is not facebook. That's not parody, but they should be adequately protected. Still, they should have chosen another font.
Also, does Facebook own the exclusive copyright to the content, or do the posters?
Third, it reminds patent officers that rejections must be based on the law, and that for whatever line of reasoning they follow (specifically talking about the seven rules in the 2007 guidelines here), "appropriate factual findings are required in order to apply the enumerated rationales properly."
Shouldn't approvals be based on the law? Rejections are a refusal to grant special status to an individual. Approvals curtail the freedoms of all other individuals. Shouldn't approvals be held to the higher standard?
He hasn't made a priority push to fix the patent system. Admittedly, there is a whole lot broken that he has pushed to fix. But still, he hasn't even talked about patent reform.
If you're not adult enough to see that FlashPlayer is impractical for about 100 reasons on a phone that has a consumer user, no I-T support, limited CPU and battery life, built-in hardware ISO video decoder, HTML5, and signed applications that can't run plug-ins, then that is your problem, not Apple's.
If Apple were treating their consumers like adults, they would let their consumers make that decision. Also, there is no way that a native flash player is slower or less secure than sending flash content back to a server to be chopped apart, processed, and re-assembled as HTML 5 content. The idea that a native player which runs OK on other phones is impossible on the iPhone is somewhere between asinine and insulting. The iPhone 4 is about 10 times stronger than the machine I started doing web development upon.
Also, everything that you mentioned bears no effect upon Adobe's system to create native iOS applications from Flash, which experienced a year-long ban from Apple's store. They eventually rescinded that ban, but not until after their attempt to ban flash in a way that would hold up in court accidentally blocked about 30% of all developers.
I might also add that the web is most definitely NOT on an HTML 5 standard. All browsers released this year support a subset of HTML 5, but actual web professionals are stuck on an Internet Explorer 7 standard. IE 7 has no idea what the heck HTML 5 is. Until 98% of your users migrate to HTML 5, it's a red herring. If you are creating HTML 5 based sites for your clients now, you're costing them a lot of customers.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, he put in lap times within 3 seconds of a professional racer, and didn't hurt anybody.
There seems to be a theory of life that nobody should be allowed to do anything if they haven't been hand-trained by a professional. How did anything get started? Do stuff. Do stuff for yourself. Think through the risks, consider all of the angles possible, and then bloody well do impressive things.
You think everyone that is going to fly a remote-controlled airplane should go through an instructor? Did you drop a sippy cup on your toe as a child? Go design and build some potato cannons, or hack together an electric vehicle from parts, or build your own garage. As much as I am a nanny-state hugging liberal, at some point the only person responsible for your life is you.
Anyone with a car can race. Some land is helpful, whether you own it or can find it. And, of course, it's probably better to race with a car you don't plan on driving a lot, especially if you're rallying. Alternatively, it's about 40 bucks to bring your car for a lap at open track days.
You can spend about 1 grand on a 2nd hand car. Alternatively, you can get a new kart for about that much.
Racing cars is not just the realm of the rich. Most of the racing in LA happens from lower-to-middle class income people.
Those Top Gear guys need to discover this whole video thing. I bet they'd do pretty well.
I'm not a huge fan of RIM. It never seemed to get more usable than a baseline Treo. Which, don't get me wrong, wasn't a bad phone. But RIM made some befuddling option layout choices. And worse than that, they really only had about 5 functions, but they had about 30 or 40 input icons.
Blackberrys were not as bad as Nokias, by any stretch of the imagination. They had bloat problems, and were in love with proprietary technologies that were only useful to about 0.1% of their user base. Ultimately, I never found them to be as usable as Palm-phones. Palm never seemed to have the money to dilute their interface with useless options. But Palm's interface was basically Windows 3.1, with issues jimmying that complexity into a system where a TCP-IP stack was a luxury that barely fit.
The crotch bomber was Nigerian, not Arab. Timothy and the Unibomber were both US and white. Jim David Adkisson was both white and in his late 50's. The McCamy Law Firm bomber and the Well's Fargo bomber were also white.
There are active terror groups in Spain, Ireland, Japan, China, India, The Former USSR, etc etc. Profiling just Arabs leaves out huge swaths of potential killers.
Is it significantly more unclean to have a dog sniff your bag, or to have a 55 year old union worker feel up your junk? When has the TSA ever cared about pissing off everyone in the country? They take naked pictures of your genitals for crying out loud.
I was on a thoroughly-check-every-time watch list in college. For what reason, I have no idea. I wasn't politically active, wasn't religious, and didn't hate government intrusion more than most college students. But over the course of 24 cross-country flights, I was "randomly" searched 30 times. Yes, they searched me on several connecting flights, even though you don't search baggage on connecting flights.
The government at the time swore up and down that these lists did not exist. Of course, that was a lie. They're more open about it now, but the idea that they're not doing background checks is laughable.
I think the problem is the weakest link in your security chain determines your security. For example, friends of mine (myself included) routinely accidentally bring knives through the x-ray scanners. Looking obsessively for the slightest sharp object on your body is foolish if they're just letting swiss army knives through the Xray. Similarly, obsessing over explosive materials in your carry-on isn't going to help if they keep allowing it through the checked baggage. You could wire up a lithium battery to explode on a plane pretty easily, but nobody is going to stop you from bringing your laptop on board.
It's just like how they would confiscate Zippos or matches on board, but allowed butane lighters. That provides exactly zero additional security over allowing all lighters onto planes.
And ultimately, we all live with risk. If the risk of dying in the car on the way to the airport is greater than the risk of dying on an airplane, is it really worth throwing more resources at? What about bridges, or nuclear power plants, or dams?
Sometimes there are second considerations.
Smartphones in the US were painfully abysmal before the iPhone. Every phone I owned before the iPhone deserved to be immediately flushed down a toilet. And I owned most of them. The stuff was GOD AWFUL. I remember using a friend's Nokia which was essentially a flip-out camera with a phone embedded into it, and it took 1/3rd of an hour of searching and 7 menu clicks to take a photo.
The iPhone advanced phone interfaces and technology tremendously. Tremendously. We're in a far better phone world because of it. Is it horribly locked down? Definitely. But it also works really well. Sometimes making the world an actual better place is enough, even if you're not vegan while doing it.
You can make a game 20% more immersive by increasing visual fidelity, but you can't put enough lipstick on it to call it art. The concepts that made Shadow of the Colossus art could have been executed on a SNES. There is a 2D flash Portal that still feels exactly like Portal.
There is a trap in there: Visuals always make something *better*, therefore if we polish the visuals enough the game can be any arbitrary level of good. And that's just not true. You have to have a core, a soul, that makes it appealing on a human level. That's not going to be true of Crysis. Don't get me wrong, Crysis was fun. But it was bubblegum. Half-Life 2 looked amazing, but it also had the gravity gun, a story, and an eerie flip on the usual hero mythos.
To be fair, developing on a PC is DAMNED HARD. To extend your analogy:
You have to build a house. You don't know what bricks you have, what materials the walls will be made of, or even the amount of space you have to put the house in. You have to build the house in such a way as to take advantage of a 512 mb lot, or an 8gb lot. The floors might be made by nVidia, ATI, or a prefab floor by intel. Each room might be bigger or smaller than you thought.
So you've gone from a console, where you know EXACTLY the dimensions, building materials, etc of the place you're building, to one where you're building an abstracted concept of a game that is supposed to build itself from available materials and still function.
That is why you network with 2 providers and an emergency backup (such as satellite).
Note that if you are hosting your e-mail offsite, when the network well and truly goes down, everyone can whip out their phones and still work. But if your e-mail is local, nothing can get in or out. Similarly, if you have hosted services and your netlink goes down, wander over to Starbucks and keep going.
It really only makes sense to locally host high-bandwidth services, like file or version control servers. Anything else can be anywhere else.
It's a 20 person company. Do you really think he's going to have the proper power conditioning, cooling, and remote-access setup for lots of live servers for basic stuff like e-mail and chat?
Keep it as simple as possible. Don't use docking stations, as they will be useless the moment laptops change. Just have people use laptops. Bog standard local NTFS file server with Raid1 for safety, and backed up offsite. Use hosted exchange if they must have meeting requests, or Gmail if not. Chat over skype.
IT is not about finding the quirky, brilliant solution that configures *just so*. It's about finding the robust solutions that will continue to work pretty well more or less indefinitely. Intra-company communication via skype means that Skype is responsible for making sure the IM server stays up, not you. Or substitute gChat / your medium of choice. Obviously, if they're legally required to log you should bring that in-house.
In two years, the hardware will be a mess of different configurations. New people will want to bring in their own laptop. That carefully constructed network map with everyone allocated a specific IP tied to their login will be useless bunk. You will be on your second wireless router. A new hire has to be able to walk in with a laptop off the street, connect to your network as painlessly as possible, and go. Login to the intranet, the intranet has links to all the software they'll need, go. The router configurations are all DHCP, and where they aren't every bloody port and plug is labeled.
If your replacement had to replace something, could they? Could a new, slightly technical user set themselves up without paging you? KISS.
Aside from the "no other store" it's not much different than any other purchase you make online.
Except he's not talking about purchases. He's talking about installing software. If I need a backup software solution, I google around for a while, find some recommendations, compare some features, then go to the site of the person who makes what I want to try. Half of the time they're free, so I just install and try it out. Otherwise they likely have a demo to go for 30 days, or THEN I'll pull out a credit card and give cash. Really, the app store is like walking into Best Buy and purchasing something, whereas the way people get software has changed significantly since then.
There may be rules in place that the app developer had to abide with to get the app approved, such as the earlier VoIP over Wifi only restriction, which has since been lifted.
There is something like 30 restrictions, which change about 4 times per year. And what defines each restriction shifts constantly. You're not allowed to have porn, for example. Which Apple at times has used to ban end-user generated photo sharing apps and apps with entirely clothed women, but APPROVED a PLAYBOY app. You're not allowed to have parodies that include real people. Obama on a trampoline. You're not allowed to use any API's that are "unpublished." For a while they allowed wifi-sniffing and network tools apps, and recently reversed that and banned them all. They ban anything they consider distasteful or crass or pointless, yet they keep millions of fart apps up on the store. They've stuck good developers in limbo for years over random apps. And if anything the year-and-a-half ordeal with Google Voice has shown, they or their partners are not above creating new rules if they feel threatened. A video streaming app, for example, was rejected early on for using too much bandwidth, even though that was never a stated prerequisite.
And while it is great that they've finally officially published standards two months ago, that is yet another revision of the rules, which they've been revising constantly and turned the iPhone into a moving target. I had a few useful but easy to write apps that I wanted to write in Flash CS5's export function, for example, shortly before they banned it. Now that it is unbanned and no-longer supported by Adobe, I can't imagine I'll bother.
You can download and put whatever you want in media on your phone/iPod/iPad.
As long as that media isn't a flash game, or other game. Or requires plug-ins, such as Ogg Vorbis or Monkey Audio. Or, for that matter, video that hasn't been munged to Apple's specific format.
I'm on my second iPhone, and am eyeing an iPad. I love Apple's user interface designers, and feel that they deserve tremendous amounts of credit for pulling the US out of the Nokia-dominated dark ages of candybar phones and being tethered to our desks. But they need to open the platform. While I may not care for porn apps, they banned a good number of network tools that would genuinely help me in my daily life. And keeping Google Voice off their phone for a year and a half for no damned reason is just infuriating. They need to start treating their users like adults, or they risk losing us to Android.
They're probably also trying to figure out how to monetize it. Why bother with investing in differing phone systems and regulatory environments if you can't figure out how to keep the lights on?
I'm sure every e-store that has been running for the last few generations has been completely ADA compliant.
For government websites, this should be required.
For professional grade, established websites, this is definitely good practice.
For everyone, though? If I wanted to create a quick website called "video rants," on which people have 30 seconds to rant on any topic they feel like, then vote on the best, convincing all of your users to subtitle their content might be enough to kill the site.
I make independent videogames in flash. Sometimes this is a combination of Flash / HTML / CSS / Javascript and other technologies. Sometimes the line between website and videogame is very blurry. It's nearly impossible to make blind-accessible videogames that work for everyone, without limiting yourself to card or text-based games.
So, people will be encouraged to stop making needlessly overcomplicated sites. It sounds like nothing of value will be lost.
How much do you want to bet Slashdot's dynamically loaded HTML plays nice with all screen readers?
According to Facebook user stats, that's pretty small. It's 37th on the list of top Facebook countries. That constitutes less than 1/2 of 1% their users. That's not something you'd want to lose, but that's not something you'd risk a successful model to chase, either.
I find it ironic that we're spending american lives on bringing "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan, when our close friends the Saudis are a hugely oppressive monarchy.
My understanding is that trademark infringement and / or dilution are related to the likelyhood of causing confusion in the marketplace. Calling yourself "The funniest and lamest of facebook" in your logo is likely to clarify that the site in question is not facebook. That's not parody, but they should be adequately protected. Still, they should have chosen another font.
Also, does Facebook own the exclusive copyright to the content, or do the posters?
Third, it reminds patent officers that rejections must be based on the law, and that for whatever line of reasoning they follow (specifically talking about the seven rules in the 2007 guidelines here), "appropriate factual findings are required in order to apply the enumerated rationales properly."
Shouldn't approvals be based on the law? Rejections are a refusal to grant special status to an individual. Approvals curtail the freedoms of all other individuals. Shouldn't approvals be held to the higher standard?
He hasn't made a priority push to fix the patent system. Admittedly, there is a whole lot broken that he has pushed to fix. But still, he hasn't even talked about patent reform.
We are really super screwed. Lots of lobbyists donate to both sets of campaigns.
If you're not adult enough to see that FlashPlayer is impractical for about 100 reasons on a phone that has a consumer user, no I-T support, limited CPU and battery life, built-in hardware ISO video decoder, HTML5, and signed applications that can't run plug-ins, then that is your problem, not Apple's.
If Apple were treating their consumers like adults, they would let their consumers make that decision. Also, there is no way that a native flash player is slower or less secure than sending flash content back to a server to be chopped apart, processed, and re-assembled as HTML 5 content. The idea that a native player which runs OK on other phones is impossible on the iPhone is somewhere between asinine and insulting. The iPhone 4 is about 10 times stronger than the machine I started doing web development upon.
Also, everything that you mentioned bears no effect upon Adobe's system to create native iOS applications from Flash, which experienced a year-long ban from Apple's store. They eventually rescinded that ban, but not until after their attempt to ban flash in a way that would hold up in court accidentally blocked about 30% of all developers.
I might also add that the web is most definitely NOT on an HTML 5 standard. All browsers released this year support a subset of HTML 5, but actual web professionals are stuck on an Internet Explorer 7 standard. IE 7 has no idea what the heck HTML 5 is. Until 98% of your users migrate to HTML 5, it's a red herring. If you are creating HTML 5 based sites for your clients now, you're costing them a lot of customers.