That is the real reason we'll be using Flash for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the iPad/iPhone will finally force someone to create the artistic tools that are needed for HTML5 timeline-oriented content. Whoever builds that will be very rich... Hmmmmm....
So, your hypothetical (utopian?) free market can't exist without the regulatory _protection_ of a government? Talk about mindless sound bites... Let me know when you found your perfect country where anarchy rules, and everyone sings in harmony with their side-arms at the ready.
I doubt "Chrome" is a terrific name to someone who only speaks Japanese. Firefox probably doesn't make much sense to a person in Brazil. IE is horrible, even in English.
In the end, if youtube requires it, people will install/upgrade it.
Lord knows I'm not a graphic designer.:-) They seem to love Flash, but that may well be because there's nothing better for vector-based "web" design. Hopefully someone will step up to the plate and build that tool; I'm sure they could live with the millions of dollars in revenue that they'd reap.
All this despite the fact that everyone is constantly complaining about how much it sucks, and nobody likes it.
That's not entirely true. Graphic designers generally LOVE Flash because of the Flash builder, Illustrator, Photoshop and the rest of Adobe's creative suite. There aren't any tools that I know of that put that kind of artistic power in hands of non-techies. CS5 does target HTML5, but it does so by using the canvas tag and a lot of JavaScript -- not by outputting "native" HTML5.
This is also what puzzled me about Jobs' claims yesterday that the iAds were all done only in HTML5. I know many advertising content creators; not many could pound out raw HTML5 that would be as impressive as the demos for iPhone OS4's ads.
In order to kill Flash, someone will need to come out with a vector-timeline-tweening GUI builder that doesn't require the developer to touch JavaScript. Perhaps Adobe will do this with Dreamweaver, or maybe Apple will release an "XCode for artists" at some point. Until then, however, don't expect Flash to disappear.
Seriously, sometimes it's about personal responsibility, but other times it's about other things - and this is one of those times. Give the 'personal responsibility' kneejerk a rest and think sometimes.
I'm a father of two, and a proud liberal from California. My boys know that if they want to go to McDonald's, or any other fast-food joint, it's because they want to eat off their menus. They have never been allowed to order "Happy Meals" or their equivalent -- only menu items with food that they really want.
Guess what? They rarely ever want to go to McDonald's restaurants. When they do, it's for breakfast, because they actually like the food. My family, and my wife's family both roll their eyes when they go out to eat with us, because their kids get to have the meal toys, and mine do not. Their kids open the toy, and rarely eat the food -- and it's quite common to hear "eat 3 more bites Gabe, otherwise you have to go to time out". My children order what they want, and they actually eat it.
I'm tired of conservatives being super self-responsibly-preachy as much as the next guy -- but in this instance, I agree with them. If you can't say no to your toddlers, then you're going to have a much bigger problem when they are teenagers (hello Bristol Palin....)
Ask yourself: Do you feel any actual, real connection to the characters? Do you feel sadness for them? Sense their love? Their loss? Do you keenly feel pain when an NPC dies? Or actual joy for the characters (not just your personal achievement) when you win? When you finish the game, do you feel changed personally?
What is the difference between an "NPC" and a character in a novel? One could argue that the game semantics add nothing to the narrative of a video game's story -- that it's just a book wrapped up in Marioesque stimuli-response sequences. But to extrapolate that to mean that they inspire no emotions "per se" as holistic works is patently false. I've shed a tear, cracked a genuine smile, laughed out loud and even jumped in fear while playing games. I've had to walk away from a game to think about the consequences of various actions.
I've had similar experiences with movies, television shows, books, paintings, and other forms of art. A few years ago, some local artists turned a to-be-destroyed building into a temporary work of art (Project 337, Google it). It had some very moving "street art" in and around the building. I suspect that some would claim that such works aren't art -- that they could not possibly evoke emotion "per se" as much as the masters do.
I don't understand why the distinction needs to be made -- nor the dogmatic adherence to those distinctions.
Video games have assuredly changed my life -- intellectually, emotionally and vocationally. I have a playlist on my iPod of my favorite video game music; some of the best orchestral compositions of the past two decades have come from video games. It's fun to go listen to Mozart and Wagner at the symphony, but it's pure joy to discover Yoko Shimomura, Kaoru Wada, Nobuo Uematsu, and K tani.
The precision of completing a flawless rapier-class race in Wipeout is perfromance art at the core.
The beauty of Bethesda's open worlds is a testament to an engineer's crafting and an artist's imagination of a world that has never existed, but does in your imagination.
The stylistic design of Steamboat Willy's world in Kingdom Hearts II turns the original on its head, and causes the player to reevaluate the 1920's classic. It's an homage, and a remix of something that you believed to have already experienced, but discovered that you hadn't fully.
Sure, many (most?) games are derivative garbage -- offering some minor twist or other. Most, however, have some grain of artistic beauty in them, while the rare gem is a work of art.
You don't "win" or "lose" Heavy Rain. You experience it. It's even less of a game than Flower. I suppose Ebert could say that it has passed through being a video game, and gone on to being an interactive movie (hello Fahrenheit 451) -- but your skill, lack thereof, or intentional supression of it determines how the narrative unfolds. It's unlike most any other "game" you have played, and very moving.
That said, I fundamentally disagree with him. Art evokes an emotional response -- and video games do that in spades. From becoming an avatar in Ultima, to avoiding zombies in Resident Evil, losing Arith in FF VII, exploring your coldwar inner child in post-apocalyptic DC in Fallout 3 and discovering who GladOS is in Portal, video games do that. Denying such is just being snobbish.
Why would you have a problem with Apple pursuing a political agenda? After all, it could "help their bottom line" -- which seems to be the primary criteria for public approval among some here.
I do have a problem with Apple censoring political speech. I realize that it's not illegal. I hope that others join with me (including yourself) to denounce this sanitized Internet that they are building around their platform.
I believe HarrySquatter's goal is to defend Apple to the hilt, and damn the facts. Personally, I own an iPhone, a 12" PowerBook (best laptop ever made), an iBook dual-USB, a 17" Macbook Pro, and a Mac Mini (2.8Ghz). I cut my teeth on an Apple//c that my dad bought me for Christmas. My first languages were AppleSoft BASIC and 6502 assembly. I love Apple products.
This, however, is appalling. I don't care if you can explain it all away with tealibertarian constitutionalish political doublespeak -- it's just wrong. Apple may indeed have the "right" (if you can call it that) to do this, but it's still douchbaggery personified.
You're changing the definition of the verb to censor. I understand why you want to do that, but it doesn't make your argument correct. The Chinese and the Iranians aren't the only people who censor information.
That does not address the argument that was presented to you: if this is a case of censorship, then every single case where someone refuses to publish someone else's work is also censorship.
It certainly does answer the question -- you just don't like the answer.
You nailed it perfectly. I never knew a hacker who cut his/her teeth on a Mac in the 80's. They were overpriced machines for yuppy "desktop publishers".
Just because Microsoft is taking its dotNet patent ball and going home with it, doesn't mean that Mono is fundamentally flawed. Take the Mono bindings for dbus and Gnome-Do as an example. The code is very easy to understand and very powerful. Hopefully Mono will now be freed from having to track Microsoft's API hell, and it can truly blossom as an open-source software stack.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the real reason we'll be using Flash for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the iPad/iPhone will finally force someone to create the artistic tools that are needed for HTML5 timeline-oriented content. Whoever builds that will be very rich... Hmmmmm....
So, your hypothetical (utopian?) free market can't exist without the regulatory _protection_ of a government? Talk about mindless sound bites... Let me know when you found your perfect country where anarchy rules, and everyone sings in harmony with their side-arms at the ready.
The free market can't exist without government regulations.
You earned your +1 Indignant mod though. Congrats! :-)
The free market frowns upon enjoying life.
I doubt "Chrome" is a terrific name to someone who only speaks Japanese. Firefox probably doesn't make much sense to a person in Brazil. IE is horrible, even in English.
In the end, if youtube requires it, people will install/upgrade it.
Is the integrated Flash part of Chromium, and is it therefore open-source ala Gnash? If so, this is huge news...
Lord knows I'm not a graphic designer. :-) They seem to love Flash, but that may well be because there's nothing better for vector-based "web" design. Hopefully someone will step up to the plate and build that tool; I'm sure they could live with the millions of dollars in revenue that they'd reap.
All this despite the fact that everyone is constantly complaining about how much it sucks, and nobody likes it.
That's not entirely true. Graphic designers generally LOVE Flash because of the Flash builder, Illustrator, Photoshop and the rest of Adobe's creative suite. There aren't any tools that I know of that put that kind of artistic power in hands of non-techies. CS5 does target HTML5, but it does so by using the canvas tag and a lot of JavaScript -- not by outputting "native" HTML5.
This is also what puzzled me about Jobs' claims yesterday that the iAds were all done only in HTML5. I know many advertising content creators; not many could pound out raw HTML5 that would be as impressive as the demos for iPhone OS4's ads.
In order to kill Flash, someone will need to come out with a vector-timeline-tweening GUI builder that doesn't require the developer to touch JavaScript. Perhaps Adobe will do this with Dreamweaver, or maybe Apple will release an "XCode for artists" at some point. Until then, however, don't expect Flash to disappear.
Seriously, sometimes it's about personal responsibility, but other times it's about other things - and this is one of those times. Give the 'personal responsibility' kneejerk a rest and think sometimes.
I'm a father of two, and a proud liberal from California. My boys know that if they want to go to McDonald's, or any other fast-food joint, it's because they want to eat off their menus. They have never been allowed to order "Happy Meals" or their equivalent -- only menu items with food that they really want.
Guess what? They rarely ever want to go to McDonald's restaurants. When they do, it's for breakfast, because they actually like the food. My family, and my wife's family both roll their eyes when they go out to eat with us, because their kids get to have the meal toys, and mine do not. Their kids open the toy, and rarely eat the food -- and it's quite common to hear "eat 3 more bites Gabe, otherwise you have to go to time out". My children order what they want, and they actually eat it.
I'm tired of conservatives being super self-responsibly-preachy as much as the next guy -- but in this instance, I agree with them. If you can't say no to your toddlers, then you're going to have a much bigger problem when they are teenagers (hello Bristol Palin....)
Ask yourself: Do you feel any actual, real connection to the characters? Do you feel sadness for them? Sense their love? Their loss? Do you keenly feel pain when an NPC dies? Or actual joy for the characters (not just your personal achievement) when you win? When you finish the game, do you feel changed personally?
What is the difference between an "NPC" and a character in a novel? One could argue that the game semantics add nothing to the narrative of a video game's story -- that it's just a book wrapped up in Marioesque stimuli-response sequences. But to extrapolate that to mean that they inspire no emotions "per se" as holistic works is patently false. I've shed a tear, cracked a genuine smile, laughed out loud and even jumped in fear while playing games. I've had to walk away from a game to think about the consequences of various actions.
I've had similar experiences with movies, television shows, books, paintings, and other forms of art. A few years ago, some local artists turned a to-be-destroyed building into a temporary work of art (Project 337, Google it). It had some very moving "street art" in and around the building. I suspect that some would claim that such works aren't art -- that they could not possibly evoke emotion "per se" as much as the masters do.
I don't understand why the distinction needs to be made -- nor the dogmatic adherence to those distinctions.
Video games have assuredly changed my life -- intellectually, emotionally and vocationally. I have a playlist on my iPod of my favorite video game music; some of the best orchestral compositions of the past two decades have come from video games. It's fun to go listen to Mozart and Wagner at the symphony, but it's pure joy to discover Yoko Shimomura, Kaoru Wada, Nobuo Uematsu, and K tani.
The precision of completing a flawless rapier-class race in Wipeout is perfromance art at the core.
The beauty of Bethesda's open worlds is a testament to an engineer's crafting and an artist's imagination of a world that has never existed, but does in your imagination.
The stylistic design of Steamboat Willy's world in Kingdom Hearts II turns the original on its head, and causes the player to reevaluate the 1920's classic. It's an homage, and a remix of something that you believed to have already experienced, but discovered that you hadn't fully.
Sure, many (most?) games are derivative garbage -- offering some minor twist or other. Most, however, have some grain of artistic beauty in them, while the rare gem is a work of art.
And the sad thing is, he would consider Wargames to be art.
You don't "win" or "lose" Heavy Rain. You experience it. It's even less of a game than Flower. I suppose Ebert could say that it has passed through being a video game, and gone on to being an interactive movie (hello Fahrenheit 451) -- but your skill, lack thereof, or intentional supression of it determines how the narrative unfolds. It's unlike most any other "game" you have played, and very moving.
That said, I fundamentally disagree with him. Art evokes an emotional response -- and video games do that in spades. From becoming an avatar in Ultima, to avoiding zombies in Resident Evil, losing Arith in FF VII, exploring your coldwar inner child in post-apocalyptic DC in Fallout 3 and discovering who GladOS is in Portal, video games do that. Denying such is just being snobbish.
Why would you have a problem with Apple pursuing a political agenda? After all, it could "help their bottom line" -- which seems to be the primary criteria for public approval among some here.
I do have a problem with Apple censoring political speech. I realize that it's not illegal. I hope that others join with me (including yourself) to denounce this sanitized Internet that they are building around their platform.
How many fart apps are there?
So, you are saying that Walmart censors their music selection?
That's why I don't buy music at Walmart.
Who cares if it's their prerogative or not? It's still censorship.
Did I slaughter one of your sacred cows or something?
I believe HarrySquatter's goal is to defend Apple to the hilt, and damn the facts. Personally, I own an iPhone, a 12" PowerBook (best laptop ever made), an iBook dual-USB, a 17" Macbook Pro, and a Mac Mini (2.8Ghz). I cut my teeth on an Apple //c that my dad bought me for Christmas. My first languages were AppleSoft BASIC and 6502 assembly. I love Apple products.
This, however, is appalling. I don't care if you can explain it all away with tealibertarian constitutionalish political doublespeak -- it's just wrong. Apple may indeed have the "right" (if you can call it that) to do this, but it's still douchbaggery personified.
You're changing the definition of the verb to censor. I understand why you want to do that, but it doesn't make your argument correct. The Chinese and the Iranians aren't the only people who censor information.
It certainly does answer the question -- you just don't like the answer.
Why argue? Just use a dictionary:
To censor
Have you used a dictionary recently?
Where did you read "freedom of speech" in TFA? I don't recall typing that....
You nailed it perfectly. I never knew a hacker who cut his/her teeth on a Mac in the 80's. They were overpriced machines for yuppy "desktop publishers".
I believe he was referring to the town in Ultima III, which he really could lay claim to.
Also, couldn't you visit the moon in Ultima II? My memory of that is hazy. I know Ronald McDonald was in it at some point.
As a Java and C++ developer, I'm jealous of several language features found in C# -- especially properties.
Just because Microsoft is taking its dotNet patent ball and going home with it, doesn't mean that Mono is fundamentally flawed. Take the Mono bindings for dbus and Gnome-Do as an example. The code is very easy to understand and very powerful. Hopefully Mono will now be freed from having to track Microsoft's API hell, and it can truly blossom as an open-source software stack.