And as long as I don't have to write the Flash code I'm fine with that. Is it still programming via dialog box? Can I use svn with my Flash code these days?
Actually programming in Flash (the program) is no longer a pain worse than death but still no fun, however, programming flash applications with Flex is beautiful, especially with all the features added in Flex 2. Honestly, I love Flex to death and I think you'll see a lot more people using it in coming years.
I disagree, I think Python is a spectacular first language. When you're teaching kids to program it helps to keep them away from the nitty gritty at first to keep their interest. Having to learn a lot of foreign concepts before being able to program something fun is what turns a lot of people off to programming, python gives the instant gratification but is also powerful and flexible enough to teach the concepts of programming. Once a student is in the programming mindset you can move them on to more complex/powerful languages like C/C++ and Java.
When I learned C it was as an independant study in high school and I used primarily O'Reilly's "Practical C". I thought it did a pretty good job, but I also used variety of other books like K&R. The most useful book for me besides Practical C was "C: A Reference Manual" by Samuel P. Harbison and Guy L. Steele, but as the title implies, it was not a book about learning C.
If you're talking about programming C++ and not straight C, I think a good book would be "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist". It's a free text (FDL) that has a versions written for Java, C++ and Python. I think it's a great text for beginning programmers because it teaches some of the fundamentals of computer science. Not a great text for college CS classes, but perfect for high school students or intro to programming classes.
Even Microsoft, it seems is admitting that Vista will be the last OS of its kind.
It is official; Microsoft now confirms: Windows is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Windows community when Steve Ballmer confirmed that Windows' market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 100 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Microsoft survey which plainly states that Windows has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Windows is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Windows' future. The hand writing is on the wall: Windows faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Windows because Windows is dying. Things are looking very bad for Windows. As many of us are already aware, Windows continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Windows Vista is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Windows developer Bill Gates only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Windows is dying.
That's a good point, but if a company really thinks they're going to be able to sell a million units of their product it seems like they'd go out of their way to make sure that a million units are available. Even if it cuts into the amount of money you make per unit, it'd be worth it for double the sales.
I bet Microsoft gets together a version of Windows for OLPC and then offers it to OLPC users for free or next to nothing. That's how it works, they give you the first copy free and then you get hooked -- pretty soon you're turning tricks in the alley just to get the security updates. I've seen it a thousand times.
The author of the article (and slashdot) quote the disk space required for XP, but why wouldn't they use XP embedded on a device like this? According to Wikipedia XP Embedded only needs "32MB Compact Flash, 32MB RAM". They should be able to get it running even without using the SD expansion slot (although that certainly wouldn't hurt).
One time I made a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it was this mat that you would put on the floor... and had different conclusions written on it that you could jump to.
Except that DVD was already an established standard at the time. Sony tried to do this before with the PSP and the UMD format and frankly that has not lived up to their expectations. You cannot force a new media format through these channels.
Totally different situation. There's a big difference between a format being pushed by one company that can only be played on one device and a format that is being supported by tens if not hundreds of companies and is supported by a wide variety of devices.
Furthermore, the benefits of UMD were marginal whereas the benefits of HD disc formats are huge -- it's not a question of whether HD formats will succeed, but rather which format will succeed (HDDVD or Bluray). Sony has given a huge push to Blu-ray by including it on the PS3.
I'll admit that it can be argued either way, but I still think HDDVD is a worse name.
Superficial differences aside, I'd bet bluray wins out anyways, mostly just because it can hold more data. The only thing working against Bluray is that it requires slightly more new machinery to produce (due to having a thinner plastic layer), but that's a one-time cost for manufacturers, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Also, last time I checked Blu-ray had more companies (both software and content) on their side.
But aren't those people exactly the ones that bought laserdiscs? They weren't enough to move that format into the mainstream even against VHS.
That's a very good point, we shall see.
We'll see. I've yet to actually see HD running on an HD TV so I've no idea if the hype is accurate (er..., in which case it's not hype) but I do know that I don't actually feel any need to improve on my DVD player or digital TV broadcasts for that matter.
I have to say the difference is stunning. I don't know if it's enough to convince most people (not enough for me yet) but it really is remarkable.
This is true, but the technological differences were more substantial with VHS/Beta than with Bluray/HDDVD. Ultimately to most people, especially casual consumers, Bluray and HDDVD are almost identical. On the other hand VHS had a distinct advantage to most consumers -- from its first introduction there were tapes available that were long enough to record full-length movies whereas Beta tapes of that length were not available until significantly after its launch.
I agree completely. Ultimately, the only thing truly "alarming" about this story is the idea that it could happen, but the fact that it's still exceedingly unlikely makes the story rather unremarkable.
As someone who has on several occasions had to listen to my brother's phone pick up in his pocket without him realizing, I don't think this is much of a problem. If the FBI wants to listen to my pocket lint, more power to them.
I think the comparison is still valid because right now, the people that are switching from DVD to an HD format are not normal people, they're the same type of people who were using laser discs back then.
Anyways, you do raise a good point, to the normal consumer Bluray/HDDVD do not offer the nearly as great advantages over DVD as DVD did over VHS. That said, I still pretty confident that an HD format will overtake DVDs. While I doubt many normal consumers will be buying HD formats for the next few years, there are definitely enough of the "afficianados", the people who have HDTVs and care about the better picture quality, to support it as a format and that is the key part. As that market develops it will bring down the cost of the equipment for playing (and manufacturing) the discs. Once HD players get down to the point where they're not considered expensive by most consumers (say under $100) then "normal" consumers will start buying. If a consumer is looking to buy a player and a regular player is $50 and a player which plays both DVD and Bluray (or HDDVD) is $80 then it becomes very easy for that person to say "Hey, why not get the combo player? It's about the same price and I'll be able to rent both types of discs and I can borrow movies from my home theater nerd friend who only buys Bluray discs now."
The other thing to keep in mind is that even before consumers actually start buying HD players, they're likely to have some device that uses them -- soon enough it will be standard for computers to come with drives for HD discs just like a DVD-ROM is standard now.
The alarming thing is the possibility that the bug could have been something that was not a physical modification to the phone's hardware, but a software modification. The article suggests that this may have been the case. So while it's probably not the case that the FBI could remotely turn any phone into a bug, the possibility of that being the case is alarming.
I didn't mean to seriously suggest that people would pick it just because it's a cooler name, but I definitely think that Bluray will be the winning format and that it will be due substantially to it having a better name (although I accept that this will be patently unprovable). Blu-ray is a name that sticks in the consumer's head, HD-DVD on the other hand, while more descriptive, is easily ignored.
To someone uniformed, the name "HD-DVD" doesn't stand out, it sort of sounds like "HDTV" and sort of like "DVD" so you group it in with those technologies in your mind. Blu-ray on the otherhand doesn't sound like anything else so it stands out in the casual observer's mind as something distinct and different -- a new technology.
I've been saying this from the beginning, but Blu-Ray will be the winner of the HD format war simply because it has a cooler name. HDDVD is hard to say and sounds like obscure computer nerd bullshit. Blu-ray on the other hand sounds like a devastating weapon that has fallen into enemy hands, putting the world at risk and now needs to be saved by a commando soldier who was recently kicked out of the army for disobeying orders and saving a village of orphans, but now is the world's only hope to avoid sure destruction. Coming to theaters near you, this July 4th.
This reminds me of when DVD came out and there was a backlash among fans of laserdiscs. In both cases, the format doesn't offer anything hugely different (still just movies on a disc) and in both cases there are some drawbacks to adopting the newer technology, but ultimately, the new technology will be adopted because of two things: (1) more advantages than drawbacks and (2) once the new format has been around for a while the cost difference becomes insignificant -- if the difference in cost is next to nothing, people (both consumers and producers) will go with the newer standard.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised it's as high as .01%, I've never been able to read any Perl I've written.
I disagree, I think Python is a spectacular first language. When you're teaching kids to program it helps to keep them away from the nitty gritty at first to keep their interest. Having to learn a lot of foreign concepts before being able to program something fun is what turns a lot of people off to programming, python gives the instant gratification but is also powerful and flexible enough to teach the concepts of programming. Once a student is in the programming mindset you can move them on to more complex/powerful languages like C/C++ and Java.
When I learned C it was as an independant study in high school and I used primarily O'Reilly's "Practical C". I thought it did a pretty good job, but I also used variety of other books like K&R. The most useful book for me besides Practical C was "C: A Reference Manual" by Samuel P. Harbison and Guy L. Steele, but as the title implies, it was not a book about learning C.
If you're talking about programming C++ and not straight C, I think a good book would be "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist". It's a free text (FDL) that has a versions written for Java, C++ and Python. I think it's a great text for beginning programmers because it teaches some of the fundamentals of computer science. Not a great text for college CS classes, but perfect for high school students or intro to programming classes.
That's a good point, but if a company really thinks they're going to be able to sell a million units of their product it seems like they'd go out of their way to make sure that a million units are available. Even if it cuts into the amount of money you make per unit, it'd be worth it for double the sales.
I bet Microsoft gets together a version of Windows for OLPC and then offers it to OLPC users for free or next to nothing. That's how it works, they give you the first copy free and then you get hooked -- pretty soon you're turning tricks in the alley just to get the security updates. I've seen it a thousand times.
The author of the article (and slashdot) quote the disk space required for XP, but why wouldn't they use XP embedded on a device like this? According to Wikipedia XP Embedded only needs "32MB Compact Flash, 32MB RAM". They should be able to get it running even without using the SD expansion slot (although that certainly wouldn't hurt).
One time I made a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it was this mat that you would put on the floor... and had different conclusions written on it that you could jump to.
Furthermore, the benefits of UMD were marginal whereas the benefits of HD disc formats are huge -- it's not a question of whether HD formats will succeed, but rather which format will succeed (HDDVD or Bluray). Sony has given a huge push to Blu-ray by including it on the PS3.
I'll admit that it can be argued either way, but I still think HDDVD is a worse name.
Superficial differences aside, I'd bet bluray wins out anyways, mostly just because it can hold more data. The only thing working against Bluray is that it requires slightly more new machinery to produce (due to having a thinner plastic layer), but that's a one-time cost for manufacturers, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Also, last time I checked Blu-ray had more companies (both software and content) on their side.
This is true, but the technological differences were more substantial with VHS/Beta than with Bluray/HDDVD. Ultimately to most people, especially casual consumers, Bluray and HDDVD are almost identical. On the other hand VHS had a distinct advantage to most consumers -- from its first introduction there were tapes available that were long enough to record full-length movies whereas Beta tapes of that length were not available until significantly after its launch.
I agree completely. Ultimately, the only thing truly "alarming" about this story is the idea that it could happen, but the fact that it's still exceedingly unlikely makes the story rather unremarkable.
As someone who has on several occasions had to listen to my brother's phone pick up in his pocket without him realizing, I don't think this is much of a problem. If the FBI wants to listen to my pocket lint, more power to them.
I think the comparison is still valid because right now, the people that are switching from DVD to an HD format are not normal people, they're the same type of people who were using laser discs back then.
Anyways, you do raise a good point, to the normal consumer Bluray/HDDVD do not offer the nearly as great advantages over DVD as DVD did over VHS. That said, I still pretty confident that an HD format will overtake DVDs. While I doubt many normal consumers will be buying HD formats for the next few years, there are definitely enough of the "afficianados", the people who have HDTVs and care about the better picture quality, to support it as a format and that is the key part. As that market develops it will bring down the cost of the equipment for playing (and manufacturing) the discs. Once HD players get down to the point where they're not considered expensive by most consumers (say under $100) then "normal" consumers will start buying. If a consumer is looking to buy a player and a regular player is $50 and a player which plays both DVD and Bluray (or HDDVD) is $80 then it becomes very easy for that person to say "Hey, why not get the combo player? It's about the same price and I'll be able to rent both types of discs and I can borrow movies from my home theater nerd friend who only buys Bluray discs now."
The other thing to keep in mind is that even before consumers actually start buying HD players, they're likely to have some device that uses them -- soon enough it will be standard for computers to come with drives for HD discs just like a DVD-ROM is standard now.
The alarming thing is the possibility that the bug could have been something that was not a physical modification to the phone's hardware, but a software modification. The article suggests that this may have been the case. So while it's probably not the case that the FBI could remotely turn any phone into a bug, the possibility of that being the case is alarming.
I didn't mean to seriously suggest that people would pick it just because it's a cooler name, but I definitely think that Bluray will be the winning format and that it will be due substantially to it having a better name (although I accept that this will be patently unprovable). Blu-ray is a name that sticks in the consumer's head, HD-DVD on the other hand, while more descriptive, is easily ignored.
To someone uniformed, the name "HD-DVD" doesn't stand out, it sort of sounds like "HDTV" and sort of like "DVD" so you group it in with those technologies in your mind. Blu-ray on the otherhand doesn't sound like anything else so it stands out in the casual observer's mind as something distinct and different -- a new technology.
I've been saying this from the beginning, but Blu-Ray will be the winner of the HD format war simply because it has a cooler name. HDDVD is hard to say and sounds like obscure computer nerd bullshit. Blu-ray on the other hand sounds like a devastating weapon that has fallen into enemy hands, putting the world at risk and now needs to be saved by a commando soldier who was recently kicked out of the army for disobeying orders and saving a village of orphans, but now is the world's only hope to avoid sure destruction. Coming to theaters near you, this July 4th.
I think the choice is obvious.
I think this is exactly true. Sony already did it once with DVDs and the PS2 -- for a lot of people the PS2 was the first DVD player they owned.
This reminds me of when DVD came out and there was a backlash among fans of laserdiscs. In both cases, the format doesn't offer anything hugely different (still just movies on a disc) and in both cases there are some drawbacks to adopting the newer technology, but ultimately, the new technology will be adopted because of two things: (1) more advantages than drawbacks and (2) once the new format has been around for a while the cost difference becomes insignificant -- if the difference in cost is next to nothing, people (both consumers and producers) will go with the newer standard.
Why? They're just as difficult (or easy as the case may be) to commit fraud with as a regular credit card.