> I have to buy Windows to code for Windows Mobile
But nobody tells you what hardware to buy. Or how how *old* your OS must be. I just finished coughing up money to upgrade OSX so that I could compile an app for an iPad, something impossible on the current version of OSX from just 6 months ago.
What, you mean the $29 dollars for the Snow Leopard CD? Cry me a river.
Regardless, you will have to make comparable upgrades to develop for Windows Phone 7. From the article on Windows 7:
Windows Phone 7 application development will be based on Silverlight, XNA, and.NET. The.NET Compact Framework will no longer be supported. The primary tools used for development will be Microsoft's Visual Studio 2010 and Expression Blend. More details about app development for Windows Phone 7 were released at the MIX10 conference on March 15, 2010.
While Visual Studio 2010 RC installs on Windows XP, the site says it is only supported on Vista or Windows 7 — and how much is that upgrade? The memory requirements for Visual Studio 2010 and Expression Blend are similar to those for Xcode for iPad development, and the Microsoft products may actually have higher video card and processor speed requirements than the Apple product.
So, yeah. Microsoft does tell you what hardware you have to buy, and how old your OS can be.
Supposing you want to run a program that I write, and I'm going to write it in exactly one language because it's just me and not a corporation with thousands of employees, and I'm not so in love with the Mac that I will write it to run only there.
Then what do you recommend I do in the face of "de-emphasized" Java?
Give the idea to someone who is willing to rewrite it for the Mac. Let him take that audience, which you won't ever see revenue from anyway, and you take everyone else, which is your comfort zone. Charge him a small royalty. Everyone wins.
Adobe does not publish numbers, but the principal project manager for Photoshop made a statement in 2008 that OS X accounted for approximately 50% of Photoshop sales.
Jobs' letter said about the same thing. "Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers — Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products — but beyond that there are few joint interests."
Jobs admits that Apple has a closed system, when Adobe is claiming theirs is open. When he talks about open, he's referring to HTML5/CSS/JavaScript, which you DO NOT need to submit to the app store.
Exactly, hes using the HTML5 argument against one portion of the Flash discussion, while completely ignoring the other half of said discussion - Flash native apps versus Cocoa native apps. Proprietary vs proprietary.
He doesn't ignore that argument at all. He makes it very clear that they are rejecting flash applications because they don't want it to become a primary way of developing applications. If it *did* become a primary way of developing applications, apple would add features to the iPhone, and no one would use them, because adobe hadn't yet got round to adding support to flash. They don't want that situation.
Exactly, he'd much rather people use his proprietary Cocoa to develop flash-like applications. Nothing hypocritical there at all. Nope, it's all about keeping things "open".
Apple wants developers to use Cocoa because Apple wants to be able to enhance the iPhone experience, and Apple cannot do that if developers rely on Adobe. Do you have a different way of doing it? Or would you just rather Apple hand responsibility for the iPhone OS over to Adobe and bow out of it themselves?
...a third solution is kind of the inverse of the second. If you are worried about lateral light from the OLED making everything a blur, just coat the film in material that doesn't let lateral light out, but instead directs it out of the film's edge using internal reflection.
It's akin to a frosted piece of glass or translucent plastic. Light enters the film but directionality is not preserved because OLEDs cannot choose where the light goes, they just emit in all directions at once.
It doesn't seem like this would be much of an issue. I can think of two solutions. One solution is to separate the OLED elements so they form a halftone screen. Each OLED element would be a point source of light so the directionality of its output wouldn't matter so much. Another solution is to put an isolating barrier around each OLED element so that it only shoots light out one direction because light output in other directions gets absorbed. If you use a material that reflects or absorbs differently based on incident angle, it shouldn't affect the light from the outside that much; it would only absorb light from the OLED that is more-or-less parallel to the film itself.
Oh, and the point of this sort of reconciliation is that the writers would have had some of the characters discussing the absurdity of planting a virus in the alien computers, but have Goldblum respond explaining it.
Which explanation would be left on the cutting room floor because is slowed down the action. Besides, us geeks will have figured out what Goldblum's explanation would have been anyway. GOTO 10.
Up until 400 years ago, the Arabs were the most technologically advanced civilization on Earth, and they were relatively ethical for that time as well. Unfortunately, as their ethics evolved their technology did not keep pace.
Did you mean to say, "unfortunately, as their technology evolved, their ethics failed to keep pace?"
There is definitely an argument to be made for that. Check out the book Human Accomplishment. The author notes the many scientific and mathematical advances made by early Islamic culture, and the failure of Islamic nations to capitalize on them. He explains it by citing social inertia, saying that the Islamic leadership was okay with exploring God's creation, but did not dare to disrupt the social order dictated by the Koran (or Quran or whatever the transcription is).
The fact is that ants haven't built rockets, while we have. We don't have any examples where less-capable individuals are able to accomplish what we have, so I think the case that highly-talented individuals are required still stands.
Our advantage isn't in being individuals, it's in being scary-smart. Crows are individualistic, intelligent animals that have tools, teaching behavior, etc., and they aren't building rockets either. But they aren't as smart as us, and neither are ants.
You may be arguing that individuality, of the type that ants don't have, is required to ascend the staggering heights of mental agility that we currently enjoy. But I don't think ants lack individuality; they don't have a hive mind or anything. They've got excellent communications and each of them has their job to do, which they focus on.
We still don't know what flipped our trigger to become intelligent, but if the same trigger were flipped in ants, their explorers would probably do practical experiments in the field and spread the word about what happened back at the nest, where the ant nymphs would learn of the latest discoveries literally in the air.
Look at the hostility the vast majority of humans have towards each other based on skin color or religion or where they live.
Actually, it seems to me that prejudicial hostility like this does not survive contact with the enemy. A couple weeks ago I heard an NPR interview with an ex-skinhead. Every time circumstances led him to interact with one of the unclean and despised on a regular basis, he ended up losing that particular prejudice. He finally gave it up entirely when he needed a job and got one working for a Jewish guy who treated him better than he expected.
So, it's not that humanity is irredeemably hostile to differences, it's that we believe what we're told until we learn better.
1. Introduce comparatively amazing new technology to comparatively primitive humans. Make it so the technology provides some new ability like the ability to travel more quickly or to feed more people. 2. Make it so when the technology is used, it releases gases which are toxic to humans and which terraform this planet into an environment more suitable for the aliens.
Please. You don't think the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the FDA, the EPA, and every similar organization in the world is going to test any alien device a dozen times over before approving it for sale?
NeXT supported "Display PostScript," which is basically what it sounds like. Thus, unlimited scaling and DPI, splines, fonts, etc.... Basically, applying laser printer techniques to your screen.
Yeah! The way you can instantly see how much money you have without having to riffle through is so fucking annoying!
This only works is if you carefully segregate your bills by denomination and keep them sorted by size. That overhead is unnecessary with same-size bills. It is faster to pay and be paid when you don't have to sort.
But, yeah, blind people have a problem. I hope the Treasury comes up with a good compromise. A patterned edge? Intaglio? Braille? Cut-outs?
I know dollars are tinted now, but they're still basically green, and all the same size. Not a major issue, I know, but it's just that little bit less convenient when you're thumbing through your wallet.
I like that they are all the same size. All the edges line up nice and neat. When you are riffling through your cash, the numbers are all in the same location and you don't have to worry about overlooking a bill.
I have traveled in places that use variably-sized bills. It drove me nuts that they wouldn't line up.
Paper money has its advantages. You can write on it and stamp on it and ink-bomb it. I don't think you can do those things with plastic money. You can wad and fold paper money to a greater degree than plastic money, which allows for smaller wallets and greater convenience. Paper money also feels warmer, smells nicer when new, and has a better texture. Plus, it doesn't get slick with sweat.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you mean the $29 dollars for the Snow Leopard CD? Cry me a river.
Regardless, you will have to make comparable upgrades to develop for Windows Phone 7. From the article on Windows 7:
While Visual Studio 2010 RC installs on Windows XP, the site says it is only supported on Vista or Windows 7 — and how much is that upgrade? The memory requirements for Visual Studio 2010 and Expression Blend are similar to those for Xcode for iPad development, and the Microsoft products may actually have higher video card and processor speed requirements than the Apple product.
So, yeah. Microsoft does tell you what hardware you have to buy, and how old your OS can be.
Supposing you want to run a program that I write, and I'm going to write it in exactly one language because it's just me and not a corporation with thousands of employees, and I'm not so in love with the Mac that I will write it to run only there.
Then what do you recommend I do in the face of "de-emphasized" Java?
Give the idea to someone who is willing to rewrite it for the Mac. Let him take that audience, which you won't ever see revenue from anyway, and you take everyone else, which is your comfort zone. Charge him a small royalty. Everyone wins.
Jobs' letter said about the same thing. "Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers — Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products — but beyond that there are few joint interests."
Hell apple expects you to give up control of even organizing your own music to its applications.
Uh, what? You are well aware that that is an optional feature that you can turn off with a check box.
BTW, I'm not a flash fan but I have to deal with it and it does do what is says it does on the tin.
It flashes?
Apple wants developers to use Cocoa because Apple wants to be able to enhance the iPhone experience, and Apple cannot do that if developers rely on Adobe. Do you have a different way of doing it? Or would you just rather Apple hand responsibility for the iPhone OS over to Adobe and bow out of it themselves?
...a third solution is kind of the inverse of the second. If you are worried about lateral light from the OLED making everything a blur, just coat the film in material that doesn't let lateral light out, but instead directs it out of the film's edge using internal reflection.
It's akin to a frosted piece of glass or translucent plastic. Light enters the film but directionality is not preserved because OLEDs cannot choose where the light goes, they just emit in all directions at once.
It doesn't seem like this would be much of an issue. I can think of two solutions. One solution is to separate the OLED elements so they form a halftone screen. Each OLED element would be a point source of light so the directionality of its output wouldn't matter so much. Another solution is to put an isolating barrier around each OLED element so that it only shoots light out one direction because light output in other directions gets absorbed. If you use a material that reflects or absorbs differently based on incident angle, it shouldn't affect the light from the outside that much; it would only absorb light from the OLED that is more-or-less parallel to the film itself.
If it is something Alice and Bob are likely to do it is encryption.
I don't know, man. Bob's got more kinks than a knotted string, and Alice sees that as a challenge.
Oh, and the point of this sort of reconciliation is that the writers would have had some of the characters discussing the absurdity of planting a virus in the alien computers, but have Goldblum respond explaining it.
Which explanation would be left on the cutting room floor because is slowed down the action. Besides, us geeks will have figured out what Goldblum's explanation would have been anyway. GOTO 10.
That's what they all say, until she sticks her tentacles in their butt...
Unless you're into that...
Hey, baby, is that a tentacle in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? And I hope your answer is "yes."
Did you mean to say, "unfortunately, as their technology evolved, their ethics failed to keep pace?"
There is definitely an argument to be made for that. Check out the book Human Accomplishment. The author notes the many scientific and mathematical advances made by early Islamic culture, and the failure of Islamic nations to capitalize on them. He explains it by citing social inertia, saying that the Islamic leadership was okay with exploring God's creation, but did not dare to disrupt the social order dictated by the Koran (or Quran or whatever the transcription is).
Our advantage isn't in being individuals, it's in being scary-smart. Crows are individualistic, intelligent animals that have tools, teaching behavior, etc., and they aren't building rockets either. But they aren't as smart as us, and neither are ants.
You may be arguing that individuality, of the type that ants don't have, is required to ascend the staggering heights of mental agility that we currently enjoy. But I don't think ants lack individuality; they don't have a hive mind or anything. They've got excellent communications and each of them has their job to do, which they focus on.
We still don't know what flipped our trigger to become intelligent, but if the same trigger were flipped in ants, their explorers would probably do practical experiments in the field and spread the word about what happened back at the nest, where the ant nymphs would learn of the latest discoveries literally in the air.
Look at the hostility the vast majority of humans have towards each other based on skin color or religion or where they live.
Actually, it seems to me that prejudicial hostility like this does not survive contact with the enemy. A couple weeks ago I heard an NPR interview with an ex-skinhead. Every time circumstances led him to interact with one of the unclean and despised on a regular basis, he ended up losing that particular prejudice. He finally gave it up entirely when he needed a job and got one working for a Jewish guy who treated him better than he expected.
So, it's not that humanity is irredeemably hostile to differences, it's that we believe what we're told until we learn better.
Please. You don't think the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the FDA, the EPA, and every similar organization in the world is going to test any alien device a dozen times over before approving it for sale?
The French are true warriors, and true defenders of freedom.
This is correct, and is backed up by the stereotypes of the bad-ass Frenchie, the Foreign Legionnaire, and the underground revolutionary.
But yet, it still sounds weird to hear it.
our parents would beat us about the head with an IBM keyboard because they thought we were looking at porn.
The Model M? Ouch! We used to use Model Ms to fight off the Hussars and tank shells.
Because NeXT is dead... :(
An explanation, for those who don't know:
NeXT supported "Display PostScript," which is basically what it sounds like. Thus, unlimited scaling and DPI, splines, fonts, etc.... Basically, applying laser printer techniques to your screen.
Would you please stop making disgusting sounds with your dentures???
*slurp* *click*
Naw, I'm good.
You're supposed to spend the money. Not sleep with it.
Hey, if I want to put all my money in a big pile and make it my bed, that's my own business.
Yeah! The way you can instantly see how much money you have without having to riffle through is so fucking annoying!
This only works is if you carefully segregate your bills by denomination and keep them sorted by size. That overhead is unnecessary with same-size bills. It is faster to pay and be paid when you don't have to sort.
But, yeah, blind people have a problem. I hope the Treasury comes up with a good compromise. A patterned edge? Intaglio? Braille? Cut-outs?
There's really no excuse for this. The bills should have different color and size to help the visually impaired. There's no good reason not to.
The bills are different colors these days, unless you are using old bills.
I know dollars are tinted now, but they're still basically green, and all the same size. Not a major issue, I know, but it's just that little bit less convenient when you're thumbing through your wallet.
I like that they are all the same size. All the edges line up nice and neat. When you are riffling through your cash, the numbers are all in the same location and you don't have to worry about overlooking a bill.
I have traveled in places that use variably-sized bills. It drove me nuts that they wouldn't line up.
Plastic money is the way to go.
Paper money has its advantages. You can write on it and stamp on it and ink-bomb it. I don't think you can do those things with plastic money. You can wad and fold paper money to a greater degree than plastic money, which allows for smaller wallets and greater convenience. Paper money also feels warmer, smells nicer when new, and has a better texture. Plus, it doesn't get slick with sweat.
You can't tip strippers with dollar coins.
Yeah, that pesky thong is in the way of the coin slot.