The intention has always been that WHATWG will submit their work to the W3C once it is done, which could well result in HTML 5. The fact that the initial development is taking place outside of the W3C doesn't matter, a number of W3C recommendations have started out elsewhere.
Good point, but in that case you could claim that HTML development inside W3C could never go stale. What I'm saying is that *inside the W3C, no work is currently being done on making a new backwards compatible version of HTML*, just XHTML 2.0. My point isn't that talented people can't submit new versions, my point is that there are people in W3C responsible for earlier versions of HTML, and that they should work on a new one instead of this. I think that the W3C should never *not* work on a new version.
Look, I agree with what you're saying on semantics. You can match one line with CSS, for example, as a result of a good model. I am not against the model. It's a good model. However, I think it's lunacy to go with the ideal model in this case.
Some people want XHTML 2.0 to be The Perfect Markup Language, by, like you say, "throwing out the cruft". I don't honestly think that it would be out before 2010 if it was, or that it could be that and still be HTML at all. And, as an effect of this, I'm also having a hard time seeing this standard ever getting widely implemented because the browsers that currently hold a 85%+ market share would have to go out of their way to support this explicitly and they haven't historically been any good with it. I'm not against a good markup language. I'm against it stealing attention from HTML for the time being, because I fear that at the end of the day, what's not HTML will remain a niche market in web browser support, just as proper XHTML handling is today.
I know about what the WHATWG does, and I think it's good work in the right direction. However, I meant development of a new (X)HTML version -- WHATWG clearly defines their specs as extensions to existing such HTML versions and the DOM -- which only W3C deals with, and which I thought was painfully clear. Obviously I was mistaken.
If you need to separate content into individual lines, that's what the <l> element type is for. Indeed. And if I need to style my text, that's what stylesheets are for. Better optimists than myself would doubt thinking even one third of the web is using stylesheets yet, and the CSS2 standard has been out for seven years now. Deprecating font tags and so on for CSS made sense, as it was a vastly better system, but switching one tag in favor of another which is just a different kind of tag is just change for change's sake.
I'm okay with stuff being changed if it ends up improving the situation vastly. (The improved role of the object tag and the new section tag are both examples of this, and I salute them.) But I am not okay with aesthetic tweaks - changing an empty tag to a container tag for the hell of it, completely and needlessly throwing backwards-compatibility to the wind, and not by mistake, but *by intention*. Am I supposed to be happy that it'll still be there in a different shape? Am I supposed to rest assured that the capable hands are not even just raising the question of basically renaming tags for the hell of it, but actually doing it?
(Some of you might drag up the argument of a smidge of added semantic purity. To which I will say that you are talking to someone that's all about semantic purity, but that this is more lunacy than anything else.)
The real problem is how people are trying to morph XHTML 2.0 into The Perfect Markup Language. They also did that with HTML 3.0. Does anyone here use HTML 3.0? No, you use at least HTML 3.2, the *backwards compatible* one, that was put in place when people actually wanted to go forward and not listen to perfectionists bickering all day long. (However, you probably use HTML 4.01 or any of the XHTML versions. But that's not the point.)
I'm not saying people shouldn't try to create a better markup language, but I am saying that the XHTML branch is the only branch of HTML that's still being developed, and it's not a wise decision to basically EOL a lot of the language. Some of the presentational HTML tags (the font tag, anyone?) deserved cutting. They're already deprecated, and CSS is way better for controlling stuff like that. These people are trying to throw out the br tag. Not deprecate it. Yank it. One of these days, wham, straight to the moon. If you ask me, that dog won't hunt, monsignore.
And finally, I join the rest of you in welcoming the Slashdot adaptation of four year old practises. It's good to have you onboard.
I agree about PayPal having to watch their asses, because I'm sure that if they were more lenient, they'd either be bankrupt today or we'd get stories about how people were scammed out of their money and certainly lots of comments about PayPal being dupes, replacing today's stories of people being locked out of their accounts and comments about how PayPal are corporate fascists. It's a fine line to walk. (However, it's obviously not good that you have to jump through hoops to get to people you can talk to that can actually do something for you.)
People who collect their own funds typically do so for three reasons: a) They want to thank the people who donate more than a specific amount, or at all. (SA is sending out swag, for example.) b) They want to match donations. c) Even if they want some of the money to get to the Red Cross, they want to get some of the money to someone's hands directly.
Most funds that are in operation right now do it for one (or some, or all) of the reasons above. None of them are possible by donating to the Red Cross directly. So if the major point is that these people are just doing a 'drive' out of spite with no main benefits, it's disproven by now. (Of course, some just want to "hand over a check" to the Red Cross with their web site name on it. I didn't say some people didn't do that. But it's wrong to accuse everyone of doing that.)
Thanks for being civil and making sense. I'll take one last chance to defend my view - not to pick a fight but only because your reasoning, while accurate, almost asks the question itself.
Proper grammar, spelling and sources certainly help your cause if you want your text to say "I'm credible". But sometimes, good reading and certainly nice revelations can come from people outside of respected news sites. (The whole ea_spouse thing, for instance.)
As has been mentioned, the article this comment is attached to actually is incorrect for reasons mentioned otherwise, but had it *been* correct, I don't reckon it should have been exempt from being spread via Slashdot simply because it was written on someone's LiveJournal. Had the news agencies picked it up, where would they have gotten their story? The guy's LiveJournal. I don't see how Slashdot, in the eyes of some, is somehow 'above' this, and I certainly don't think that stories appear out of thin air without these exact kinds of sources to start them off. That closes my argument, as I believe in letting people think what they want to think (like you say: "agree to disagree").
I've only been reading Slashdot for three years and haven't been noting any particular falls in quality - but this could easily be due to people being blind to the status quo, and it's likely that the quality *has* detoriated and that I'm just green enough to not notice. It's true that they sometimes get spelling wrong and that dupes are many, but for every article with that kind of error are five published articles without that kind of error, and surely 150 unpublished suggestions that have to be weighed against each other and against the crop of the day. I don't think that the editing job is as easy as one might imagine.
As for the qualities of the actual articles, that's a bit tougher. I don't think I've ever seen an article by an editor (not based on submitted material) that hasn't been accused of bias or agenda-pushing. I don't think it's the fault of the editors if it's actually a "slow news day" and there are less than stellar articles that get published because there's not really much that's better. And I certainly don't complain loudly about "money-grubbing opportunists" when some poor sod tries to break even on his bandwidth bill by including some Google ads as a security measure. (However, there are definite blunders like the whole Roland Piquepaille affair. There's simply no excuse for that.)
Some of the best things I've ever seen on Slashdot (like, but surely not limited to, this one) weren't news in any sense of the word (or by your definition). Furthermore, I think it's fairly obvious that Slashdot doesn't need to restrict its publishing guidelines to its motto (which, almost per definition, is mostly for show).
Personally, I care much more about the contents of the piece than I care about what people might label the medium it was published in, or whether it would qualify as "news" or not.
A presidental address or a Nobel prize speech are both delivered through word of mouth, and drunken ramblings about how ugly that guy in the corner is is also word of mouth - they have nothing else in common. I don't see how this article has anything in common with the "let's analyze at my lunch, oh and life sucks" stereotype people like to hold out to be the epitome of LiveJournal - other than the delivery medium. Likewise, would you consider it fair if you discussed quantum physics in a comment, and the rest of the world modded you a troll because "hey, it's a comment"?
Let's not get into the dumb and shallow habit of deriding a message because of its medium.
The "boxtop mini" that you're describing sounds like it's part of a bigger strategy with the long rumored Video iPod, and might also go with a similar AirPort Express AV product. What Apple's great at is leveraging technology and building on top of existing products. iTunes is based on QuickTime, iPod is a simplified parallel of iTunes and AirPort Express builds from iTunes in a smart way.
So I think that if they *do* go all out and make a box set thing, they'll probably do the Video iPod first. And you're right that the Cell would be a perfect choice for such a device (the box set) - one of the first big Cell demos was about decoding MPEG4 streams in parallel, even. However, I wouldn't think that they'd allow you to turn it into a computer because I think that they know damn well that operating a computer on your TV has always sucked and been clunky. HDTV may mean a half-decent resolution but that's only part of their problem. I think they'd just want people to get a Mac mini instead.
(Yeah, CELL would require a port. That's probably the point that Steve got sidetracked on. My guess is the discussions of re-writing for CELL produced a lot of complaints, and a lot of, "if we're going to have to do that, why not re-write for iNTEL?" Silly middle management.)
Your post is a sea of red herrings for all I know. First of all, Apple *never* ported - as in 'rewriting' - to x86. OpenStep was working perfectly fine on x86 when they got it, and they simply continued to maintain that port but dropping the public releases of it after Mac OS X Developer Release 2 - right after the Aqua interface was introduced. When Steve Jobs proclaimed that "Mac OS X has been living a secret double life for the past five years" at this year's WWDC, he meant it, and he also noted that *all golden masters of 10.0 thru 10.4 have been built for PPC and x86*. If you still think this is a "rewrite" port, I don't know what to tell you.
Second of all, from all I've heard, the Cell is very powerful for some tasks but more or less sucks at some other tasks, and it's very much a niche CPU. If a primary CPU needs to be anything, it's well-rounded. I doubt that Apple will release a Mac with the Cell as a primary CPU - however it's not impossible that they license it to Sony, whose PS3 page says that it can run "Apple's Tiger", or that they simply stick a Cell or two in as helper processors in late PowerPC models.
I also don't doubt for a minute that Mac OS X runs on at least one other architecture beyond x86, the new Intels and PowerPC. Intel was their contingency plan when they went with PowerPC - it's only logical that they'd want a new contingency plan now, even if the need may not be as big if they've got secret deals with AMD too (which it's hard to imagine they haven't).
New York, Mr. Pelgrin says he took pains to carefully design the exercise, including hiring an outside Web consultant to design the mock email pitch. "We wanted to make sure it was not too good," he says.
Taking a cue from their competition (Nintendo), Microsoft announced that we can help them overcome these hurdles by repeatedly pressing A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B as fast as possible.
Two additions: a) Press the Up button when at the hurdle, as to avoid it. Just pressing A-B-A-B would have you ramming into the hurdle full speed (if I know Microsoft right, that's what they would have done anyway). b) Use a marble and run it over the A and B buttons. Tactic of champions.
I'm writing this on a PowerBook G4 with a backlit keyboard. The great thing about this backlighting is that the keys are opaque, but the letters are transparent, so it's easy to see the letters. On most other backlit keyboards, it's the letters that are opaque which isn't half as effective seeming as how you're generally drawn towards the light, and not towards the dark.
It's nice to see that Logitech gets this, too. In fact, the G15 backlighting will probably be even better seeming as how the keys are black (the Aluminum PowerBook keys are silver, so if you have the brightness turned down it can actually be hard to make out the letters - it has to be fairly dark for it to work).
Having desktop applications in web application versions working just as good and integrating into web sites (or leverages being a web application in some other way) would be cool. It's also not very likely to happen very soon - even the gathering of pretty small extensions to HTML to add stuff like slider controls, regular expression validation and basic javascript drawing to the boilerplate web browser features will take years. (See http://whatwg.org/. Also contemplate three things: the date of the CSS 2.0 spec (May 1998), the current date (August 2005), and the number of versions of 90%+-market-share-hawking brand browsers that support it (0). )
There will always be browser-specific features that can solve it. Safari (by means of WebKit) has recently gained the ActiveX-like ability to support its own form of browser plugins that's basically wrappers of Cocoa NSViews, complete with JavaScript functions built-in. You could implement your whole Cocoa app in a plugin. This isn't the hard part. The hard part is laying it all out and getting everyone to agree on it, convincing fogeys like me that it actually will be worth it, and finally spending several years to come to consensus, implement it and maintain it for several years until it becomes somewhat stable. And *then* one could start building apps with it.
Aside from the cool factor, where's the huge benefit that justifies this time of implementation and puts all of my worries to rest? I'm still waiting for this after having read the replies to my original comments, and most, like yours, only specify that "hey, it can be done, and here's some emerging technologies that may or may not make it", which is nice, and which I already knew (see the last paragraph), but wasn't what I was contesting.
Good points, but none of them countered my argument. Most things are possible given the right browser plugins or built-in browser support (as XMLHTTPRequest and Javascript themselves are examples of) - I never debated that. I just think that it's insanely stupid to build certain kinds of apps as web applications because their implementation could be better off being built as a desktop application.
There's another side of this, too. If you have Photoshop or The GIMP or Paint Shop Pro installed, you can, with very few exceptions, snag an image from anywhere, get it into your program, edit it in a familiar environment (including usage of your own filters, shortcuts and what have you), and get it out of there. That's the whole point of desktop applications.
Web applications work just fine with text and to a lesser degree with file attachments, but making it work gracefully with other kinds of media, including rich text (yes, I know about contentEditable HTML and so on), video, sound and pictures (vector- and pixel-based) *built in* would require a major reworking of the way web developers work with HTML and Javascript. And what are we left with? A sub-optimal clone of desktop applications.
You say that I could have my drawing app as a web application. I don't *want* my drawing app as a web application. Making everything into a web application is a text book example of having a hammer and everything looking like nails.
Web applications are neat. (I would recommend everyone and anyone to read http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/location_field.) Desktop applications are neat. Moving certain desktop applications to web applications (or vice versa) to gain certain benefits is very neat. I never once contested this. But to *cram* all of one class into the other class for no particular reason, that's just not neat, beneficial or useful.
The web applications that benefit from AJAX benefit because the experience is snappier, and because it can behave a little more like a desktop application. That's all.
Making web applications look, feel and work like desktop applications take time and require hard work, and it's mostly useless because the tasks that wouldn't be hurt by being transferred from a desktop application to a web application are few. Programs like The GIMP and Photoshop are near impossible to do as web applications, and that's not because HTML wasn't build for web applications, but because they shouldn't be web applications in the first place.
There are two schools of spelling that - the patent mentions Ziv first by name and some people thus go by that - "ZLW", while others go by the more common "LZW" order. Wikipedia has details. (Oh, and in the spirit of others treating you the way you treat others, would it be okay for me to deride you as a 'joke' for not knowing that, conveniently deciding to not take anything you say seriously?)
I don't know, but I hope it's either Xeon or a new 64-bit processor. Celerons are awful, in my opinion.
(Of course it's not guaranteed that they'll use anything other than Pentium for even part of the line, but like I said, if they were going to, wouldn't they have said "Pentium processors" instead of "Intel processors"? Then again, they didn't even say "x86-compatible", so I may be just wildly speculating.)
I'm not saying they won't go with Pentium M - quite the opposite - I just don't think they'll be going with them *exclusively*. They're too far along tooting the 64-bit horn to not stay there, and it's not at all inconceivable that they've held off switching to Intel until a 64-bit processor was in the works.
Ten bucks says they'll be using the upcoming 64-bit Pentium ("D", was it?) whereever they can get it running. In the meantime, so that the developers will be able to run any kind of Intel processors, they're using Pentium 4.
In fact, now that I think about it, the word "Pentium" was mentioned only in the context of the Developer's Transition Kit. Everything coming out of Apple regarding this, including the WWDC keynote, has detailed a switch to "Intel microprocessors" - the Xcode build rule even says "PowerPC" and "Intel". If they were only going to use different CPUs in the Pentium family (M for laptops, 4 for desktops), wouldn't they have said "Pentium processors"?
Slashdot Mirror
The intention has always been that WHATWG will submit their work to the W3C once it is done, which could well result in HTML 5. The fact that the initial development is taking place outside of the W3C doesn't matter, a number of W3C recommendations have started out elsewhere.
Good point, but in that case you could claim that HTML development inside W3C could never go stale. What I'm saying is that *inside the W3C, no work is currently being done on making a new backwards compatible version of HTML*, just XHTML 2.0. My point isn't that talented people can't submit new versions, my point is that there are people in W3C responsible for earlier versions of HTML, and that they should work on a new one instead of this. I think that the W3C should never *not* work on a new version.
Look, I agree with what you're saying on semantics. You can match one line with CSS, for example, as a result of a good model. I am not against the model. It's a good model. However, I think it's lunacy to go with the ideal model in this case.
Some people want XHTML 2.0 to be The Perfect Markup Language, by, like you say, "throwing out the cruft". I don't honestly think that it would be out before 2010 if it was, or that it could be that and still be HTML at all. And, as an effect of this, I'm also having a hard time seeing this standard ever getting widely implemented because the browsers that currently hold a 85%+ market share would have to go out of their way to support this explicitly and they haven't historically been any good with it. I'm not against a good markup language. I'm against it stealing attention from HTML for the time being, because I fear that at the end of the day, what's not HTML will remain a niche market in web browser support, just as proper XHTML handling is today.
I know about what the WHATWG does, and I think it's good work in the right direction. However, I meant development of a new (X)HTML version -- WHATWG clearly defines their specs as extensions to existing such HTML versions and the DOM -- which only W3C deals with, and which I thought was painfully clear. Obviously I was mistaken.
If you need to separate content into individual lines, that's what the <l> element type is for. Indeed. And if I need to style my text, that's what stylesheets are for. Better optimists than myself would doubt thinking even one third of the web is using stylesheets yet, and the CSS2 standard has been out for seven years now. Deprecating font tags and so on for CSS made sense, as it was a vastly better system, but switching one tag in favor of another which is just a different kind of tag is just change for change's sake.
I'm okay with stuff being changed if it ends up improving the situation vastly. (The improved role of the object tag and the new section tag are both examples of this, and I salute them.) But I am not okay with aesthetic tweaks - changing an empty tag to a container tag for the hell of it, completely and needlessly throwing backwards-compatibility to the wind, and not by mistake, but *by intention*. Am I supposed to be happy that it'll still be there in a different shape? Am I supposed to rest assured that the capable hands are not even just raising the question of basically renaming tags for the hell of it, but actually doing it?
(Some of you might drag up the argument of a smidge of added semantic purity. To which I will say that you are talking to someone that's all about semantic purity, but that this is more lunacy than anything else.)
The reasons may be lame, but the problems with correct MIME types and how they *break people's web browsers* (I am not *only* talking about IE) are real and not to be underestimated. Required reading: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/14/eddies _in_the_spacetime_continuum
The real problem is how people are trying to morph XHTML 2.0 into The Perfect Markup Language. They also did that with HTML 3.0. Does anyone here use HTML 3.0? No, you use at least HTML 3.2, the *backwards compatible* one, that was put in place when people actually wanted to go forward and not listen to perfectionists bickering all day long. (However, you probably use HTML 4.01 or any of the XHTML versions. But that's not the point.)
I'm not saying people shouldn't try to create a better markup language, but I am saying that the XHTML branch is the only branch of HTML that's still being developed, and it's not a wise decision to basically EOL a lot of the language. Some of the presentational HTML tags (the font tag, anyone?) deserved cutting. They're already deprecated, and CSS is way better for controlling stuff like that. These people are trying to throw out the br tag. Not deprecate it. Yank it. One of these days, wham, straight to the moon. If you ask me, that dog won't hunt, monsignore.
And finally, I join the rest of you in welcoming the Slashdot adaptation of four year old practises. It's good to have you onboard.
I agree about PayPal having to watch their asses, because I'm sure that if they were more lenient, they'd either be bankrupt today or we'd get stories about how people were scammed out of their money and certainly lots of comments about PayPal being dupes, replacing today's stories of people being locked out of their accounts and comments about how PayPal are corporate fascists. It's a fine line to walk. (However, it's obviously not good that you have to jump through hoops to get to people you can talk to that can actually do something for you.)
People who collect their own funds typically do so for three reasons:
a) They want to thank the people who donate more than a specific amount, or at all. (SA is sending out swag, for example.)
b) They want to match donations.
c) Even if they want some of the money to get to the Red Cross, they want to get some of the money to someone's hands directly.
Most funds that are in operation right now do it for one (or some, or all) of the reasons above. None of them are possible by donating to the Red Cross directly. So if the major point is that these people are just doing a 'drive' out of spite with no main benefits, it's disproven by now. (Of course, some just want to "hand over a check" to the Red Cross with their web site name on it. I didn't say some people didn't do that. But it's wrong to accuse everyone of doing that.)
that's fine; we'll agree to disagree.
Thanks for being civil and making sense. I'll take one last chance to defend my view - not to pick a fight but only because your reasoning, while accurate, almost asks the question itself.
Proper grammar, spelling and sources certainly help your cause if you want your text to say "I'm credible". But sometimes, good reading and certainly nice revelations can come from people outside of respected news sites. (The whole ea_spouse thing, for instance.)
As has been mentioned, the article this comment is attached to actually is incorrect for reasons mentioned otherwise, but had it *been* correct, I don't reckon it should have been exempt from being spread via Slashdot simply because it was written on someone's LiveJournal. Had the news agencies picked it up, where would they have gotten their story? The guy's LiveJournal. I don't see how Slashdot, in the eyes of some, is somehow 'above' this, and I certainly don't think that stories appear out of thin air without these exact kinds of sources to start them off. That closes my argument, as I believe in letting people think what they want to think (like you say: "agree to disagree").
I've only been reading Slashdot for three years and haven't been noting any particular falls in quality - but this could easily be due to people being blind to the status quo, and it's likely that the quality *has* detoriated and that I'm just green enough to not notice. It's true that they sometimes get spelling wrong and that dupes are many, but for every article with that kind of error are five published articles without that kind of error, and surely 150 unpublished suggestions that have to be weighed against each other and against the crop of the day. I don't think that the editing job is as easy as one might imagine.
As for the qualities of the actual articles, that's a bit tougher. I don't think I've ever seen an article by an editor (not based on submitted material) that hasn't been accused of bias or agenda-pushing. I don't think it's the fault of the editors if it's actually a "slow news day" and there are less than stellar articles that get published because there's not really much that's better. And I certainly don't complain loudly about "money-grubbing opportunists" when some poor sod tries to break even on his bandwidth bill by including some Google ads as a security measure. (However, there are definite blunders like the whole Roland Piquepaille affair. There's simply no excuse for that.)
Some of the best things I've ever seen on Slashdot (like, but surely not limited to, this one) weren't news in any sense of the word (or by your definition). Furthermore, I think it's fairly obvious that Slashdot doesn't need to restrict its publishing guidelines to its motto (which, almost per definition, is mostly for show).
Personally, I care much more about the contents of the piece than I care about what people might label the medium it was published in, or whether it would qualify as "news" or not.
"Google Web Search".
A presidental address or a Nobel prize speech are both delivered through word of mouth, and drunken ramblings about how ugly that guy in the corner is is also word of mouth - they have nothing else in common. I don't see how this article has anything in common with the "let's analyze at my lunch, oh and life sucks" stereotype people like to hold out to be the epitome of LiveJournal - other than the delivery medium. Likewise, would you consider it fair if you discussed quantum physics in a comment, and the rest of the world modded you a troll because "hey, it's a comment"?
Let's not get into the dumb and shallow habit of deriding a message because of its medium.
The "boxtop mini" that you're describing sounds like it's part of a bigger strategy with the long rumored Video iPod, and might also go with a similar AirPort Express AV product. What Apple's great at is leveraging technology and building on top of existing products. iTunes is based on QuickTime, iPod is a simplified parallel of iTunes and AirPort Express builds from iTunes in a smart way.
So I think that if they *do* go all out and make a box set thing, they'll probably do the Video iPod first. And you're right that the Cell would be a perfect choice for such a device (the box set) - one of the first big Cell demos was about decoding MPEG4 streams in parallel, even. However, I wouldn't think that they'd allow you to turn it into a computer because I think that they know damn well that operating a computer on your TV has always sucked and been clunky. HDTV may mean a half-decent resolution but that's only part of their problem. I think they'd just want people to get a Mac mini instead.
(Yeah, CELL would require a port. That's probably the point that Steve got sidetracked on. My guess is the discussions of re-writing for CELL produced a lot of complaints, and a lot of, "if we're going to have to do that, why not re-write for iNTEL?" Silly middle management.)
Your post is a sea of red herrings for all I know. First of all, Apple *never* ported - as in 'rewriting' - to x86. OpenStep was working perfectly fine on x86 when they got it, and they simply continued to maintain that port but dropping the public releases of it after Mac OS X Developer Release 2 - right after the Aqua interface was introduced. When Steve Jobs proclaimed that "Mac OS X has been living a secret double life for the past five years" at this year's WWDC, he meant it, and he also noted that *all golden masters of 10.0 thru 10.4 have been built for PPC and x86*. If you still think this is a "rewrite" port, I don't know what to tell you.
Second of all, from all I've heard, the Cell is very powerful for some tasks but more or less sucks at some other tasks, and it's very much a niche CPU. If a primary CPU needs to be anything, it's well-rounded. I doubt that Apple will release a Mac with the Cell as a primary CPU - however it's not impossible that they license it to Sony, whose PS3 page says that it can run "Apple's Tiger", or that they simply stick a Cell or two in as helper processors in late PowerPC models.
I also don't doubt for a minute that Mac OS X runs on at least one other architecture beyond x86, the new Intels and PowerPC. Intel was their contingency plan when they went with PowerPC - it's only logical that they'd want a new contingency plan now, even if the need may not be as big if they've got secret deals with AMD too (which it's hard to imagine they haven't).
Yes, let's not point in the general direction of anything sold by anyone, ever.
New York, Mr. Pelgrin says he took pains to carefully design the exercise, including hiring an outside Web consultant to design the mock email pitch. "We wanted to make sure it was not too good," he says.
Burned!
Taking a cue from their competition (Nintendo), Microsoft announced that we can help them overcome these hurdles by repeatedly pressing A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B as fast as possible.
Two additions: a) Press the Up button when at the hurdle, as to avoid it. Just pressing A-B-A-B would have you ramming into the hurdle full speed (if I know Microsoft right, that's what they would have done anyway). b) Use a marble and run it over the A and B buttons. Tactic of champions.
I'm writing this on a PowerBook G4 with a backlit keyboard. The great thing about this backlighting is that the keys are opaque, but the letters are transparent, so it's easy to see the letters. On most other backlit keyboards, it's the letters that are opaque which isn't half as effective seeming as how you're generally drawn towards the light, and not towards the dark.
It's nice to see that Logitech gets this, too. In fact, the G15 backlighting will probably be even better seeming as how the keys are black (the Aluminum PowerBook keys are silver, so if you have the brightness turned down it can actually be hard to make out the letters - it has to be fairly dark for it to work).
Lrrr (eating): Mmm, this jerked chicken is good! I think I'll have Fry's lower horn jerked.
Bender (shouting): It's used to it! WOOOOOO!
(-2)+(-3)=+1 is Slashdot Moderator Math, which has no basis in either reality or fantasy and transmits no useful information whatsoever.
One word: Bistromathics.
Having desktop applications in web application versions working just as good and integrating into web sites (or leverages being a web application in some other way) would be cool. It's also not very likely to happen very soon - even the gathering of pretty small extensions to HTML to add stuff like slider controls, regular expression validation and basic javascript drawing to the boilerplate web browser features will take years. (See http://whatwg.org/. Also contemplate three things: the date of the CSS 2.0 spec (May 1998), the current date (August 2005), and the number of versions of 90%+-market-share-hawking brand browsers that support it (0). )
There will always be browser-specific features that can solve it. Safari (by means of WebKit) has recently gained the ActiveX-like ability to support its own form of browser plugins that's basically wrappers of Cocoa NSViews, complete with JavaScript functions built-in. You could implement your whole Cocoa app in a plugin. This isn't the hard part. The hard part is laying it all out and getting everyone to agree on it, convincing fogeys like me that it actually will be worth it, and finally spending several years to come to consensus, implement it and maintain it for several years until it becomes somewhat stable. And *then* one could start building apps with it.
Aside from the cool factor, where's the huge benefit that justifies this time of implementation and puts all of my worries to rest? I'm still waiting for this after having read the replies to my original comments, and most, like yours, only specify that "hey, it can be done, and here's some emerging technologies that may or may not make it", which is nice, and which I already knew (see the last paragraph), but wasn't what I was contesting.
Network != "web application".
Good points, but none of them countered my argument. Most things are possible given the right browser plugins or built-in browser support (as XMLHTTPRequest and Javascript themselves are examples of) - I never debated that. I just think that it's insanely stupid to build certain kinds of apps as web applications because their implementation could be better off being built as a desktop application.
) Desktop applications are neat. Moving certain desktop applications to web applications (or vice versa) to gain certain benefits is very neat. I never once contested this. But to *cram* all of one class into the other class for no particular reason, that's just not neat, beneficial or useful.
There's another side of this, too. If you have Photoshop or The GIMP or Paint Shop Pro installed, you can, with very few exceptions, snag an image from anywhere, get it into your program, edit it in a familiar environment (including usage of your own filters, shortcuts and what have you), and get it out of there. That's the whole point of desktop applications.
Web applications work just fine with text and to a lesser degree with file attachments, but making it work gracefully with other kinds of media, including rich text (yes, I know about contentEditable HTML and so on), video, sound and pictures (vector- and pixel-based) *built in* would require a major reworking of the way web developers work with HTML and Javascript. And what are we left with? A sub-optimal clone of desktop applications.
You say that I could have my drawing app as a web application. I don't *want* my drawing app as a web application. Making everything into a web application is a text book example of having a hammer and everything looking like nails.
Web applications are neat. (I would recommend everyone and anyone to read http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/location_field.
The web applications that benefit from AJAX benefit because the experience is snappier, and because it can behave a little more like a desktop application. That's all.
Making web applications look, feel and work like desktop applications take time and require hard work, and it's mostly useless because the tasks that wouldn't be hurt by being transferred from a desktop application to a web application are few. Programs like The GIMP and Photoshop are near impossible to do as web applications, and that's not because HTML wasn't build for web applications, but because they shouldn't be web applications in the first place.
The guy's a joke for plenty more reasons than that.
Seeming as how the "reasons" are so "plenty", please enumerate a few for us.
There are two schools of spelling that - the patent mentions Ziv first by name and some people thus go by that - "ZLW", while others go by the more common "LZW" order. Wikipedia has details. (Oh, and in the spirit of others treating you the way you treat others, would it be okay for me to deride you as a 'joke' for not knowing that, conveniently deciding to not take anything you say seriously?)
I don't know, but I hope it's either Xeon or a new 64-bit processor. Celerons are awful, in my opinion.
(Of course it's not guaranteed that they'll use anything other than Pentium for even part of the line, but like I said, if they were going to, wouldn't they have said "Pentium processors" instead of "Intel processors"? Then again, they didn't even say "x86-compatible", so I may be just wildly speculating.)
I'm not saying they won't go with Pentium M - quite the opposite - I just don't think they'll be going with them *exclusively*. They're too far along tooting the 64-bit horn to not stay there, and it's not at all inconceivable that they've held off switching to Intel until a 64-bit processor was in the works.
Ten bucks says they'll be using the upcoming 64-bit Pentium ("D", was it?) whereever they can get it running. In the meantime, so that the developers will be able to run any kind of Intel processors, they're using Pentium 4.
In fact, now that I think about it, the word "Pentium" was mentioned only in the context of the Developer's Transition Kit. Everything coming out of Apple regarding this, including the WWDC keynote, has detailed a switch to "Intel microprocessors" - the Xcode build rule even says "PowerPC" and "Intel". If they were only going to use different CPUs in the Pentium family (M for laptops, 4 for desktops), wouldn't they have said "Pentium processors"?
Hm.