That's IPv4 smartie pants. TV's have MAC addresses. These TV's like all IP appliances in the home receive their IP addressed by DHCP. DHCP in your home is most likely provided by a cable/DSL router which issues private '10 / 192.168 / 172 / etc..' block IP's to requesting devices. These addresses are reserved for non-internet based travel. 192.168.0.1 could literally be assigned millions and millions of times around the world and it wouldn't matter. The router then does NAT traversal in dealing with actually sending requests to the internet. The total increase in IP demand for having 1, 2, or 10000 IP TV's in my house is 0.
Now that you're educated please troll somewhere else.
I love Java as much as the next Java zealot, but sadly the last year's merger stall with Oracle really crippled the company in so many vital ways that I have my doubts about Oracle's ability to win back the hearts and minds of Mobile/Embedded developers from the growing influence of the iPhone and Android platforms. I wish Oracle all the best in this, though I do say they've got their work cut out for them.
The site does say that it generates applications in binary form, but its said so ambiguously that they process of creating the binary isn't described. I don't denounce your claim though. It definitely seems more likely that its a blob based on the wording.
This does make Adobe more 'evil' in that if in fact they are just spitting out a in a binary payload as a deliverable it means that flash developers are still locked into Adobe's own sandbox for iPhone apps. It doesn't make Apple's restriction of 'originally derived languages' any more acceptable though.
If Apple just wants to block Adobe's platoform locking then they should have just said that "byte code submitted for app store approval must have been generated by Apple certified compilers".
I could still write a transcoder that converted my code to Objective C from any number of languages and Apple could still block the lock-in to Adobe's platform (with regards to iPhone apps anyways).
Method overhead is a Runtime issue, not a language one. Its still Adobe's fault, but it means that the language itself could hypothetically be improved through the development of a faster runtime (eg. JVM performance improved substantially for java 1.4-1.5, 1.5-1.6, JavaScript has been steadily getting faster in brower javascript engines ever since the Web 2.0 started to pick up). The fact that Flash the platform sucks doesn't mean that Flash the language is fundamentally flawed (unless in this case they're inseparable which leaves the impression of what you're saying).
If Adobe writes horrible software that developers and users can't use then there's no issue. The fact that Flash is still around means that there IS a demand for either User or developer acceptance. I personally hate 90% of the flash apps that people churn out on the internet, but there's still some real gems that makes having the platform around worth while. Can these 10% be written in something else that performs better? Maybe, but if they could, why weren't they? I still remember going to new grounds and watching the movies that some people come up with. Great.
Of course. I don't think anyone who reads Slashdot would ever think that either of these companies are at each other's throats over financial incentives. They're both corporations. End of story. Now imagine this debate was between people. Lets say for the sake of a hypothetical discussion that this argument is between Linus Torvalds and Joe the Lazy Coder.
Joe's really good at writing Python code so he decided to write an adapter that trans-codes python code into a C code that can be compiled into a kernel driver. Linus thinks that writing kernel drivers in Python is dumb, slow and, bloated so he decides to write code into the kernel which detects the python driver output and stops it from loading.
Even in this strange scenario, I can't really say that the Linus position is not necessarily being 'evil' at this point. Linus can personally say that he doesn't want Python trans-coded code in the kernel. That doesn't stop Joe, or anyone else who find's Joe's works meaningful. It may be a little extra work, but someone can build a kernel with the anti-Joe code disabled. If he tried to prohibit Joe from distribution through legal moves then his 'evil' high ground is shattered. One could make the 'evil' point that Linus' word regarding what he allows into the kernel would defacto limit the number of possible users of Joe's code to a margin. One could also define 'evil' by judging the driver based on its parentage (Like branding the child of a murderer as a murder) without any evidence of wrongdoing.
How this is different from Adobe / Apple: 1. Joe can remove said code from the kernel he uses. Adobe, nor any customer can disable Apple's restrictions on their 'i'-platforms 2. Joe can release a kernel with his code working, Apple doesn't allow for any third party modifications of their core code 3. Joe can release drivers to anyone in the world without Linus' permission, Software developed for the iPhone can only be distributed with Apple's blessing or Apple's developer program
Or you take the code taken from the Flash -> Objective C converter and add said features yourself. You seem to gloss over the fact that at the end of the day Adobe's product still needs to generate 100% iPhone compatible Objective C.
If Adobe fucks the dog and stops supporting a flash trans-coder, you can always build in new features at your whim. In this sense, there's precisely 0 lock-in with Adobe's flash developer platform for iPhone development. If like you say everyone should be learning Objective C anyways, the only real difference is that the code spat out by Adobe 'may' be slow and inefficient. The trade-off is obviously that the time to market using Adobe's tool is almost invariably going to be reduced for people who already have an investment in Flash.
People who want N to iPhone ObjectiveC transcoders: 1. Developers who hate Objective C 2. Developers who are already familiar with N 3. People who think that vendor lock-in is intrinsically wrong
People who don't want N to iPhone ObjectiveC transcoders: 1. Apple 2. People who support Apple's assumption that developers shouldn't have the right to make great or crappy software using other languages 3. Developers who've already learned iPhone SDK & Objective C and want to keep the market competition as small as possible
Which one are you?
I fall into the "Want 3" category. I have no interest in developing iPhone apps, and I've never developed flash in my life. Flash may be the slow and retarded ever invented, but I think the more fundamental issue the the restriction of expressiveness that Apple is enforcing on developers. Whatever the reason, they choose to limit your options to: 1. Their language, API, development platform, license, etc.. 2. Somewhere else
I just hope that more and more developers vote with their code and start developing on Android, Blackberry, Moblin, Palm, or even Windows frigging mobile...
The government (in this case Apple) is telling you how to communicate. ObjectiveC is the new Newspeak, thanks a lot apple!
I'm sorry, but who's left in the tech world who can legitimately stand up for this farce of a company? I mean Microsoft still has its zealous FUD machines yes, but Apple's been fare more 'evil' the last few years than MS in the past 10.
I don't know what the heck you're trying to say about "HTC Incredible" full price. The Incredible isn't available in Canada because nobody is selling it here yet. HTC has to choose to open the retail chain supply for Canada, Google has to bless their part of the deal which is the apps / market, a store has to be compelled to actually carry the phone, and buyers have to be compelled to buy them. On top of that there's the fed who can hold up any device from being used (aka sold) in Canada if the device was never certified for electrical interference, etc..
The question why 'Enter some product here' isn't available in Canada (or any other countries not already supported) usually comes down to 2 reasons: 1. The market rewards aren't big enough to justify the hurdles of entering the market 2. Said company wants to market the product in said country, but haven't met all the regulatory or market limitations needed to make a compelling entry into the market
For your example of the Incredible, the most likely reason why it isn't in Canada is because they probably haven't found a carrier to subsidize the phone day one. Why wasn't the iPhone not sold in Canada for a year after being available in the US? The reason is probably the same. Until they had a carrier agreement with Rogers, no iPhones were sold directly to customers in Canada.
"But on a serious note, none of the big tech companies in the USA launch their products across the border." This is just wrong. Get educated or stop making inflammatory comments.
"but big store companies will not even take orders from Canadians" Many companies couldn't be bothered to support Canada or other nations because of the stupidly complex system of taxation, levies, surcharges, etc.. that a company needs to jump through in order to properly sell any products across borders directly to consumers. Besides the few retailers online like Paypal / Amazon, there aren't many services that will offer to buy / sell products from/to anywhere in the world.
Yup, its better to choose a protocol like MAPI and try and reverse engineer it instead of using published standards like SMTP / IMAP... Oh... thats not working out so well now, is it? IMAP / SMTP may have billions of mostly compatible implementations but MAPI has oh, 1 defacto implementation. I am glad that some open source projects seem to be getting close to parity with MS releases now (Over 20 years after the first MAPI release..).
Then there's SMB.. same broken record, just a different story.
Means that when I want to look at the screen of my coworker across from me, I have to run around half the table to see it... Sitting in your typical square cubicle-type style means I can seem me peer's screen easily reducing potential wasted time. Plus it makes them less likely to surf for porn knowing there's potentially 3 people looking over their back =)
In running flash apps natively within apple hardware, you go it, but regarding the transcoding of flash into ObjectiveC apple doesn't have any philosophical justification to ban them besides the fact that apps transcoded from flash aren't locked tied into Apple's development tools / platform.
Flash is (developer) popular because its a DSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_language) for graphical designers. It's probably the only and most successful DSL ever made for any domain, period. Love it or hate it, it has a place in the software world. If there are better ways for graphic designers to develop applications then by all means make it and get ready to start printing the money.
Flash could eventually be cloned and implemented independently to make a 'better' flash than flash, but you can never EVER legally run a non-approved application on Apple hardware. The least of two evils is the one that can be worked around. Buying into apple hardware means that I'm stuck with apple forever. Buying into Adobe Flash means that I'm tied into Adobe's Flash implementation until a better open source flash comes out.
If anyone's going to be developing for a locked in closed platform then Apple would rather have it their own instead of Adobe's. If its a matter of developer mind share, Apple wants more people using their crappy incompatible platform because then people are 'stuck' on Apple hardware.
Phase 2 -- Support 'iPhoneOS' apps on Mac's Phase 3 -- Drop OSX API support for Mac's Phase 4 -- Drop iTunes support for Windows and prosecute any and everyone who attempts to Phase 5 -- Own the home PC market
Native flash on the phones have never been supported, but there are apps today that were developed using flash and transcoded to the platform. You wouldn't know that they were flash, but they are. If someone is stifled from using the tools that help them write amazing apps, then the developer will either write a less than ideal app, the same app but much later, or never develop that app. As a user you'll only really feel the first point and be less impressed with the outcome. The lack of developers (from whatever tool) means there's less of a chance in getting good apps. Apple in its single voice that all flash transcoded applications are crap and they'll have none of them on their devices. I don't program flash or have any interest in ever programming flash for the iPhone, but the fact that Apple and Apple alone can tell me that I can't is just about the biggest insult I can see. Oh, in other news Microsoft is banning Java, Flash, and HTML5 from Windows because they believe that everyone should be using.NET.
Executives at Adobe could make the case that by depreciating the value of Apple PC's & laptops would erode the value of Apple's mobiles devices which is highly likely. Eroding the value of Apple mobile devices means that there is a potentially larger market for any other platform which 'will' most likely run flash. Having the choice of developing for flash, ObjectiveC, Java, C, etc... most existing Flash developers would continue to use Flash in their mobility offerings if they find ObjectiveC as a less enticing option. Ultimately it means that Adobe remains in the mobile development platform game.
The personal computing market is just so screwed up right now that we're left with: 1. The PC application development market is stagnating 2. Device-centric application development which makes 'WORM' development less and less likely 3. Web based development continues to be the only somewhat reliable Run-On-Any platform 4. More and more software shops are more likely to sell you a platform than a product 5. Mobile providers have almost entirely lost control over what runs on phones running on their networks (Yay for this one) 6. The rise in Device-centric development is causing less and less choice in terms of application development. If you look at PC's, there are tons of platforms and languages to choose from. Apple has one platform / language. Microsoft has a few incompatible platforms with a few(?) languages supported. Nokia... Google... etc... etc...
You could say the same thing about Silverlight and Java applets. All of them have a place on the internet, although Silverlight and Java have significantly smaller markets to become marginalized. Flash has 4 'winner' areas right now: 1. Video - The lions share of internet video is either served or streamed through some form of Flash player. The advent of a good HTML5 video standard would mean flash becomes a burden in the road to compatibility -- DEAD 2. Games - The flash games market is pretty solid and aren't going anywhere soon. There are tons upon tons of games written in flash, and the majority couldn't be ported to HTML 5 at all, although many could given the right determination) 3. Ads - Tons of ads are fed through Flash for whatever reason (I block random flash so I couldn't tell what they're all about) 4. Graphs / Corny Image Viewers - Graphing in static HTML currently sucks, so many sites have turned to Flash to solve their interactivity defects of HTML / Javascript. Maybe Google can expand GWT to make dead simple graphing... One can dream... As for corny image viewers, this is something that HTML 5 can and does regularly embrace, but for some cracked reason I seem to be bumping into more sites that insist on using flash for image viewing... very annoying!
I don't think any browser vendor specifically cares about having a simplified and streamlined installation of flash out of box or easily installed. What they do want is something compelling to internet users to continue using their product. Video is pretty essential to most web users today. Most people would love to kill flash ads. Games are key for those that play many flash games, but that group is insignificant when compared to the vast majority of web surfers online.
If you refer to his novels, 'Kafkaesque' would most likely denote the endless pain and futility of dealing with an organization where the participant has no idea what hoops to jump through until they are prevented without achieving them.
Kafka used the individual's ignorance of the system as a weapon that is used to dis-empower him. Even the most crazily elaborate set of obstacles can be overcome with planning and diligence if you're aware of them, but in Kafka's novels, there was always a new challenge to overcome whenever the previous one was achieved. This ultimate futility was the driving theme of many of his stories.
Dictionary quote: adjective Complex or illogical in a bizarre, surreal, or nightmarish manner.
In either case, the original poster of the phrase miss-appropriated it into their post to express what would be best served just dropping the word and leaving the sentence in tact without "active enforcement of ever-shifting, secret rules against applications" would have served just fine.
Answer: They are discriminated against, but they still seem to get promoted better than their female counterparts.
PS troll: Its not about wanting to become a kindergarten teacher, or race car driver, or CEO, or nurse. Its that once you've chosen your aspired to career path you are not being discriminated against for who you are.
Before starting I'll violate the internet and give some personal backstory to show some perspective. I'm a man in a software development company. Our company is probably in the minority here, because we've got pretty close to 50% male / female ratio for developers / testers / DBA's / middle-managers. I'd say that probably only the upper level managers are almost entirely male. I've seen and worked in other companies where frankly a woman working in the company was a conversation point based on its rarity! Different companies foster different opinions which are rooted from their founders or powerful leaders there-after. Now that I've described my context, I can hopefully lay out what views are in this particular issue.
We see these types of studies and posts on Slashdot come and go every half a year, and it basically comes down to the same old crap. You have the groups: 1. I don't give a crap about women. If they had the balls to get ahead they would 2. I don't give a crap about the stat. Women aren't programmed to being in 'said role' so all is well in the world 3. I think this stat is really serious because it means that women are being discriminated against 4. I think this stat is really serious and we should change they way we raise our children, or the way our neighbors raise their children
Firstly, I'd like to ask this: There are women in the fields described in the review and they find a way to do their jobs day in and day out. If I had a fist full of grant money for a research project about this topic, I'd do a study on the lives of female executives, their world, and the challenges they face day in and out both professionally and personally. How can line item statistics grasp the truth of something so ? Why not: Do high level executives face ongoing male ridicule? Do female executives need to choose either reproduction or promotion? Do women who leave 'said field' (either as executives or not quite there yet) because they felt pushed out, stressed out, underachieving, overachieving, not worth it, or did they just not want to pursue that type of life?
Speaking of 'that type of life', As a man speaking here, I want to live a long happy and content life where I hope money would not factor into any unhappiness. I think so far I'm doing a good job of that. I haven't had money supply worries since university, and I've been spending well below my means for around 5 years (even before investments, retirement savings, etc..). I'm not going to push myself into more pain to aspire to the greatest position in a company because of all the agony of in-fighting, politics, sucking up, and usually losing a few points of IQ just to make more money and/or to have power over people. If my managers promote me for my merit, then at least I know that I deserved it. I know the adage, you are never totally free in a company until you're on top, but I say what does it take to achieve that freedom, and who do you become from it?
Another little store about top executives since we're on topic. I knew the CFO of >100million company and was always constantly astounded to find at just how greedy his share holders were for money. These are people what could probably buy a small countries and live like kings, or have their families live hundreds of years without working a day of their lives in contentment.. They will always want more. I really can't say why because I'm just not that type of person. I think everyone should want to do good for their family and themselves, but at some point the acquisition of wealth becomes 'the' purpose of these peoples lives, and that just makes me feel sorry for them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's IPv4 smartie pants. TV's have MAC addresses. These TV's like all IP appliances in the home receive their IP addressed by DHCP. DHCP in your home is most likely provided by a cable/DSL router which issues private '10 / 192.168 / 172 / etc..' block IP's to requesting devices. These addresses are reserved for non-internet based travel. 192.168.0.1 could literally be assigned millions and millions of times around the world and it wouldn't matter. The router then does NAT traversal in dealing with actually sending requests to the internet. The total increase in IP demand for having 1, 2, or 10000 IP TV's in my house is 0.
Now that you're educated please troll somewhere else.
I love Java as much as the next Java zealot, but sadly the last year's merger stall with Oracle really crippled the company in so many vital ways that I have my doubts about Oracle's ability to win back the hearts and minds of Mobile/Embedded developers from the growing influence of the iPhone and Android platforms. I wish Oracle all the best in this, though I do say they've got their work cut out for them.
The site does say that it generates applications in binary form, but its said so ambiguously that they process of creating the binary isn't described. I don't denounce your claim though. It definitely seems more likely that its a blob based on the wording.
This does make Adobe more 'evil' in that if in fact they are just spitting out a in a binary payload as a deliverable it means that flash developers are still locked into Adobe's own sandbox for iPhone apps. It doesn't make Apple's restriction of 'originally derived languages' any more acceptable though.
If Apple just wants to block Adobe's platoform locking then they should have just said that "byte code submitted for app store approval must have been generated by Apple certified compilers".
I could still write a transcoder that converted my code to Objective C from any number of languages and Apple could still block the lock-in to Adobe's platform (with regards to iPhone apps anyways).
Method overhead is a Runtime issue, not a language one. Its still Adobe's fault, but it means that the language itself could hypothetically be improved through the development of a faster runtime (eg. JVM performance improved substantially for java 1.4-1.5, 1.5-1.6, JavaScript has been steadily getting faster in brower javascript engines ever since the Web 2.0 started to pick up). The fact that Flash the platform sucks doesn't mean that Flash the language is fundamentally flawed (unless in this case they're inseparable which leaves the impression of what you're saying).
If Adobe writes horrible software that developers and users can't use then there's no issue. The fact that Flash is still around means that there IS a demand for either User or developer acceptance. I personally hate 90% of the flash apps that people churn out on the internet, but there's still some real gems that makes having the platform around worth while. Can these 10% be written in something else that performs better? Maybe, but if they could, why weren't they? I still remember going to new grounds and watching the movies that some people come up with. Great.
Of course. I don't think anyone who reads Slashdot would ever think that either of these companies are at each other's throats over financial incentives. They're both corporations. End of story. Now imagine this debate was between people. Lets say for the sake of a hypothetical discussion that this argument is between Linus Torvalds and Joe the Lazy Coder.
Joe's really good at writing Python code so he decided to write an adapter that trans-codes python code into a C code that can be compiled into a kernel driver. Linus thinks that writing kernel drivers in Python is dumb, slow and, bloated so he decides to write code into the kernel which detects the python driver output and stops it from loading.
Even in this strange scenario, I can't really say that the Linus position is not necessarily being 'evil' at this point. Linus can personally say that he doesn't want Python trans-coded code in the kernel. That doesn't stop Joe, or anyone else who find's Joe's works meaningful. It may be a little extra work, but someone can build a kernel with the anti-Joe code disabled. If he tried to prohibit Joe from distribution through legal moves then his 'evil' high ground is shattered. One could make the 'evil' point that Linus' word regarding what he allows into the kernel would defacto limit the number of possible users of Joe's code to a margin. One could also define 'evil' by judging the driver based on its parentage (Like branding the child of a murderer as a murder) without any evidence of wrongdoing.
How this is different from Adobe / Apple:
1. Joe can remove said code from the kernel he uses. Adobe, nor any customer can disable Apple's restrictions on their 'i'-platforms
2. Joe can release a kernel with his code working, Apple doesn't allow for any third party modifications of their core code
3. Joe can release drivers to anyone in the world without Linus' permission, Software developed for the iPhone can only be distributed with Apple's blessing or Apple's developer program
Or you take the code taken from the Flash -> Objective C converter and add said features yourself. You seem to gloss over the fact that at the end of the day Adobe's product still needs to generate 100% iPhone compatible Objective C.
If Adobe fucks the dog and stops supporting a flash trans-coder, you can always build in new features at your whim. In this sense, there's precisely 0 lock-in with Adobe's flash developer platform for iPhone development. If like you say everyone should be learning Objective C anyways, the only real difference is that the code spat out by Adobe 'may' be slow and inefficient. The trade-off is obviously that the time to market using Adobe's tool is almost invariably going to be reduced for people who already have an investment in Flash.
People who want N to iPhone ObjectiveC transcoders:
1. Developers who hate Objective C
2. Developers who are already familiar with N
3. People who think that vendor lock-in is intrinsically wrong
People who don't want N to iPhone ObjectiveC transcoders:
1. Apple
2. People who support Apple's assumption that developers shouldn't have the right to make great or crappy software using other languages
3. Developers who've already learned iPhone SDK & Objective C and want to keep the market competition as small as possible
Which one are you?
I fall into the "Want 3" category. I have no interest in developing iPhone apps, and I've never developed flash in my life. Flash may be the slow and retarded ever invented, but I think the more fundamental issue the the restriction of expressiveness that Apple is enforcing on developers. Whatever the reason, they choose to limit your options to:
1. Their language, API, development platform, license, etc..
2. Somewhere else
I just hope that more and more developers vote with their code and start developing on Android, Blackberry, Moblin, Palm, or even Windows frigging mobile...
The government (in this case Apple) is telling you how to communicate. ObjectiveC is the new Newspeak, thanks a lot apple!
I'm sorry, but who's left in the tech world who can legitimately stand up for this farce of a company? I mean Microsoft still has its zealous FUD machines yes, but Apple's been fare more 'evil' the last few years than MS in the past 10.
Hey, only Apple's allowed to appeal to your animal instincts of conformity and self-importance!
I don't know what the heck you're trying to say about "HTC Incredible" full price. The Incredible isn't available in Canada because nobody is selling it here yet. HTC has to choose to open the retail chain supply for Canada, Google has to bless their part of the deal which is the apps / market, a store has to be compelled to actually carry the phone, and buyers have to be compelled to buy them. On top of that there's the fed who can hold up any device from being used (aka sold) in Canada if the device was never certified for electrical interference, etc..
The question why 'Enter some product here' isn't available in Canada (or any other countries not already supported) usually comes down to 2 reasons:
1. The market rewards aren't big enough to justify the hurdles of entering the market
2. Said company wants to market the product in said country, but haven't met all the regulatory or market limitations needed to make a compelling entry into the market
For your example of the Incredible, the most likely reason why it isn't in Canada is because they probably haven't found a carrier to subsidize the phone day one. Why wasn't the iPhone not sold in Canada for a year after being available in the US? The reason is probably the same. Until they had a carrier agreement with Rogers, no iPhones were sold directly to customers in Canada.
"But on a serious note, none of the big tech companies in the USA launch their products across the border."
This is just wrong. Get educated or stop making inflammatory comments.
"but big store companies will not even take orders from Canadians"
Many companies couldn't be bothered to support Canada or other nations because of the stupidly complex system of taxation, levies, surcharges, etc.. that a company needs to jump through in order to properly sell any products across borders directly to consumers. Besides the few retailers online like Paypal / Amazon, there aren't many services that will offer to buy / sell products from/to anywhere in the world.
Yup, its better to choose a protocol like MAPI and try and reverse engineer it instead of using published standards like SMTP / IMAP... Oh... thats not working out so well now, is it? IMAP / SMTP may have billions of mostly compatible implementations but MAPI has oh, 1 defacto implementation. I am glad that some open source projects seem to be getting close to parity with MS releases now (Over 20 years after the first MAPI release..).
Then there's SMB.. same broken record, just a different story.
Means that when I want to look at the screen of my coworker across from me, I have to run around half the table to see it... Sitting in your typical square cubicle-type style means I can seem me peer's screen easily reducing potential wasted time. Plus it makes them less likely to surf for porn knowing there's potentially 3 people looking over their back =)
In running flash apps natively within apple hardware, you go it, but regarding the transcoding of flash into ObjectiveC apple doesn't have any philosophical justification to ban them besides the fact that apps transcoded from flash aren't locked tied into Apple's development tools / platform.
Flash is (developer) popular because its a DSL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_language) for graphical designers. It's probably the only and most successful DSL ever made for any domain, period. Love it or hate it, it has a place in the software world. If there are better ways for graphic designers to develop applications then by all means make it and get ready to start printing the money.
Flash could eventually be cloned and implemented independently to make a 'better' flash than flash, but you can never EVER legally run a non-approved application on Apple hardware. The least of two evils is the one that can be worked around. Buying into apple hardware means that I'm stuck with apple forever. Buying into Adobe Flash means that I'm tied into Adobe's Flash implementation until a better open source flash comes out.
If anyone's going to be developing for a locked in closed platform then Apple would rather have it their own instead of Adobe's. If its a matter of developer mind share, Apple wants more people using their crappy incompatible platform because then people are 'stuck' on Apple hardware.
Phase 2 -- Support 'iPhoneOS' apps on Mac's
Phase 3 -- Drop OSX API support for Mac's
Phase 4 -- Drop iTunes support for Windows and prosecute any and everyone who attempts to
Phase 5 -- Own the home PC market
Native flash on the phones have never been supported, but there are apps today that were developed using flash and transcoded to the platform. You wouldn't know that they were flash, but they are. If someone is stifled from using the tools that help them write amazing apps, then the developer will either write a less than ideal app, the same app but much later, or never develop that app. As a user you'll only really feel the first point and be less impressed with the outcome. The lack of developers (from whatever tool) means there's less of a chance in getting good apps. Apple in its single voice that all flash transcoded applications are crap and they'll have none of them on their devices. I don't program flash or have any interest in ever programming flash for the iPhone, but the fact that Apple and Apple alone can tell me that I can't is just about the biggest insult I can see. Oh, in other news Microsoft is banning Java, Flash, and HTML5 from Windows because they believe that everyone should be using .NET.
Executives at Adobe could make the case that by depreciating the value of Apple PC's & laptops would erode the value of Apple's mobiles devices which is highly likely. Eroding the value of Apple mobile devices means that there is a potentially larger market for any other platform which 'will' most likely run flash. Having the choice of developing for flash, ObjectiveC, Java, C, etc... most existing Flash developers would continue to use Flash in their mobility offerings if they find ObjectiveC as a less enticing option. Ultimately it means that Adobe remains in the mobile development platform game.
The personal computing market is just so screwed up right now that we're left with:
1. The PC application development market is stagnating
2. Device-centric application development which makes 'WORM' development less and less likely
3. Web based development continues to be the only somewhat reliable Run-On-Any platform
4. More and more software shops are more likely to sell you a platform than a product
5. Mobile providers have almost entirely lost control over what runs on phones running on their networks (Yay for this one)
6. The rise in Device-centric development is causing less and less choice in terms of application development. If you look at PC's, there are tons of platforms and languages to choose from. Apple has one platform / language. Microsoft has a few incompatible platforms with a few(?) languages supported. Nokia... Google... etc... etc...
Vocal minorities increase at least linearly with the existing user base. A larger community always means more complainers.
You could say the same thing about Silverlight and Java applets. All of them have a place on the internet, although Silverlight and Java have significantly smaller markets to become marginalized. Flash has 4 'winner' areas right now:
1. Video - The lions share of internet video is either served or streamed through some form of Flash player. The advent of a good HTML5 video standard would mean flash becomes a burden in the road to compatibility -- DEAD
2. Games - The flash games market is pretty solid and aren't going anywhere soon. There are tons upon tons of games written in flash, and the majority couldn't be ported to HTML 5 at all, although many could given the right determination)
3. Ads - Tons of ads are fed through Flash for whatever reason (I block random flash so I couldn't tell what they're all about)
4. Graphs / Corny Image Viewers - Graphing in static HTML currently sucks, so many sites have turned to Flash to solve their interactivity defects of HTML / Javascript. Maybe Google can expand GWT to make dead simple graphing... One can dream... As for corny image viewers, this is something that HTML 5 can and does regularly embrace, but for some cracked reason I seem to be bumping into more sites that insist on using flash for image viewing... very annoying!
I don't think any browser vendor specifically cares about having a simplified and streamlined installation of flash out of box or easily installed. What they do want is something compelling to internet users to continue using their product. Video is pretty essential to most web users today. Most people would love to kill flash ads. Games are key for those that play many flash games, but that group is insignificant when compared to the vast majority of web surfers online.
Maybe 15 or fewer years they will when all applicable patents expire. God bless the patent system.
Directshow / gstreamer / quicktime then silently skulk away =)
Oh what a difference a few decades make.
If you refer to his novels, 'Kafkaesque' would most likely denote the endless pain and futility of dealing with an organization where the participant has no idea what hoops to jump through until they are prevented without achieving them.
Kafka used the individual's ignorance of the system as a weapon that is used to dis-empower him. Even the most crazily elaborate set of obstacles can be overcome with planning and diligence if you're aware of them, but in Kafka's novels, there was always a new challenge to overcome whenever the previous one was achieved. This ultimate futility was the driving theme of many of his stories.
Dictionary quote:
adjective
Complex or illogical in a bizarre, surreal, or nightmarish manner.
In either case, the original poster of the phrase miss-appropriated it into their post to express what would be best served just dropping the word and leaving the sentence in tact without "active enforcement of ever-shifting, secret rules against applications" would have served just fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_nursing
http://www.cno.org/prac/yau/2005/06_male_nurses.htm
Answer: They are discriminated against, but they still seem to get promoted better than their female counterparts.
PS troll: Its not about wanting to become a kindergarten teacher, or race car driver, or CEO, or nurse. Its that once you've chosen your aspired to career path you are not being discriminated against for who you are.
Before starting I'll violate the internet and give some personal backstory to show some perspective. I'm a man in a software development company. Our company is probably in the minority here, because we've got pretty close to 50% male / female ratio for developers / testers / DBA's / middle-managers. I'd say that probably only the upper level managers are almost entirely male. I've seen and worked in other companies where frankly a woman working in the company was a conversation point based on its rarity! Different companies foster different opinions which are rooted from their founders or powerful leaders there-after. Now that I've described my context, I can hopefully lay out what views are in this particular issue.
We see these types of studies and posts on Slashdot come and go every half a year, and it basically comes down to the same old crap. You have the groups:
1. I don't give a crap about women. If they had the balls to get ahead they would
2. I don't give a crap about the stat. Women aren't programmed to being in 'said role' so all is well in the world
3. I think this stat is really serious because it means that women are being discriminated against
4. I think this stat is really serious and we should change they way we raise our children, or the way our neighbors raise their children
Firstly, I'd like to ask this: There are women in the fields described in the review and they find a way to do their jobs day in and day out. If I had a fist full of grant money for a research project about this topic, I'd do a study on the lives of female executives, their world, and the challenges they face day in and out both professionally and personally. How can line item statistics grasp the truth of something so ? Why not:
Do high level executives face ongoing male ridicule?
Do female executives need to choose either reproduction or promotion?
Do women who leave 'said field' (either as executives or not quite there yet) because they felt pushed out, stressed out, underachieving, overachieving, not worth it, or did they just not want to pursue that type of life?
Speaking of 'that type of life', As a man speaking here, I want to live a long happy and content life where I hope money would not factor into any unhappiness. I think so far I'm doing a good job of that. I haven't had money supply worries since university, and I've been spending well below my means for around 5 years (even before investments, retirement savings, etc..). I'm not going to push myself into more pain to aspire to the greatest position in a company because of all the agony of in-fighting, politics, sucking up, and usually losing a few points of IQ just to make more money and/or to have power over people. If my managers promote me for my merit, then at least I know that I deserved it. I know the adage, you are never totally free in a company until you're on top, but I say what does it take to achieve that freedom, and who do you become from it?
Another little store about top executives since we're on topic. I knew the CFO of >100million company and was always constantly astounded to find at just how greedy his share holders were for money. These are people what could probably buy a small countries and live like kings, or have their families live hundreds of years without working a day of their lives in contentment.. They will always want more. I really can't say why because I'm just not that type of person. I think everyone should want to do good for their family and themselves, but at some point the acquisition of wealth becomes 'the' purpose of these peoples lives, and that just makes me feel sorry for them.