Except the reality is he probably will just get fired for being irresponsible with company property. I probably wouldn't fire him, but I bet they will. This is their flagship product.
So obviously the requirements for sustaining life may not be exactly the same as those that are required to create it. What I mean is, millions of years ago on earth (or about 6000 years give or take) when that primordial soup formed a few amino acids/protein chain/whatever perhaps that required water? And in the millennial of evolution some of the organisms evolved to live without water. Does this make sense? I guess what I am really asking is how much do we know about the conditions that existed when life on earth was created?
Is it on par with Crytek and Unreal with post processing, shaders, motion blur, anisotropic filtering, AA etc? (Honestly curious, don't know the answer). If so, what's the major difference between a game and a graphics engine?
Thank you for being one of only of the only people that gets it. All this Flash/Adobe hate is going to come back and bite the geek community in the ass 1000 times worse when sites start not rendering unless you allow the canvas tag.
You have been able to deep link into Flash for years. And honestly, if you think touchscreen phones are over glorified, I'm not sure why you're involving yourself in this debate at all.
It's like you brought a big swath of your lawn up in here, laid it down, and asked everyone to get off of it.
Recently there used to be a feature to "ban" a result (like experts exchange) but they removed it in favor of only being able to "star" results you like. I'll have to say this seemed the single best feature they had ever added to search results. It was very useful to be able to identify (for myself) who was gaming the results. But apparently google thinks I'm better off with the safety of little pretty stars.
Android yes, iPhone no. What are the 7 resolutions you speak of? Care to point them out? I'm excluding tablet-based for the moment. And the 3 I think of are 480x320 (G1, Magic, Eris, Hero, Moment, MyTouch3G), 480x854 (Droid), 480x800 (Nexus One).
I was making no claim as to which platform is easier to develop for, makes more or less money, or about his argument regarding the iPhone. Just pointing out that the "fragmentation" of Android resolutions is more hype than fact.
So please explain why you think my comment was disingenuous.
It would also be helpful if they put some time into investigating permalancing, unpaid internships, and the unethical practice of performing credit checks on applicants.
Luckily, 16 states are looking into banning credit checks, and unpaid internships are being looked at as well.
There are only really 2-3 screen size for Android phones. And Android has some excellent APIs for handling auto scaling and whatnot. This "drawback" is a FUD myth much as the one you are countering about iPhones.
More excuses. And this argument is just silly. They have only ever really had to support 2 types of hardware that they control. MS has had to deal with thousands upon thousands of different configurations. Not saying one is better than the other, (they are just different philosophies). But it's not like Apple had some unbelievably smooth transition from OS9 to OSX because they banned java from the platform. Seriously, think about what you're saying.
There is also evidence that Apple changing their API would cause such a delay on Adobe's part as to cause a loss in quality for the user experience. If Apple were to change the API in a way that wasn't backward compatible then, yes, everyone would have to scramble to update, but how likely are they to lock out the old version of their own hardware when they only support a handful of hardware they control?
Furthermore, Apple already reserves the right to reject any app, and look at how many bad ones are there now. This is about hatred for Adobe, don't kid yourself. If this was anyone but Adobe, the Slashdot community would be pissed.
It frustrates me that so few people on Slashdot get this. I understand the visceral hatred for Adobe because Flash has become a standard for advertising, but the platform is so much more that that. And I'm annoyed that people cant see past the ads, especially when I bet 90% of Slashdotters use ad blocking software.
How can they excite the user base if they are locked out of the platform? Similarly, what's the difference between an poor app that makes limited use of the Apple API, and a Flash-created app that makes good use of a more limited Adobe API for cross compiling? You cant tell me every current app out there makes perfect use of each API call such that it shows off the OS's unique strength at every turn. I'm sorry but your technical argument just doesn't hold water. Business wise I think you have a point though, but I think apple still gains, but they seem to think they dont want to gain the same technology as everyone else in the crowd (ie the smartphone market), they want to stand out.
The problem here is, they want to stand out by not including things. Seems awfully counter-intuitive.
Litany of excuses. As the AC said, supposedly, supposedly. The fact of the matter is apple already controls which apps gain approval, so any quality control argument is nonsense. Not to mention some of the undoubtedly bad apps on the app store already. The plain truth is people have come to associate Flash and advertising and have put on emotional blinders to everything else. If this was not about Flash, Slashdot would be outraged.
Well said. I think this is even true with speed too (to some extent). Sometimes I wonder how much people really care about a 20% speed increase here and there when browsers can load and render lots of sites in 1-2 seconds. Obviously this doesnt include mobile platforms.
Find yourselves a good credit union people. Mine has no ATM fees, refunds ATM fees that *other* banks charge me, doesnt ever reorder checks to double hit me, has a max fee of $30, and has about the best customer service and relationship of any company I have ever dealt with. And probably about a dozen other good things I can't think of off the top of my head.
There is literally no reason whatsoever to give your money and soul to Citibank or Chase or BoA these days.
You're right, but expect that line to get blurred over time. Look at PBS and NPR: they dont have ads, but they do. Google is starting to do this now with Google maps on Android. They put sponsored links in the search results. While fine and noninvasive in it's present form, over time I would fully expect them to get more invasive until it is as saturated as Television. No corporation can resist a new avenue for advertising revenue. Hell, even nonprofits like NPR/PBS can't.
Yeah except this has nothing to do with legislative conflicts and more to do with a young, egotistical, fundamentalist christian DA from a specific country trying to scare people and get in the news and impose his beliefs on people. He needs to STFU and GBTW.
From TFA:
The paper spoke to a co-author of the legislation. She called the DA's letter "irresponsible" and said it was "laughable to think teachers could be charged for telling students how to use contraception."
"Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone," said Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison. "This guy is not a credible legal source on this matter, I'm sorry to say. His purpose is to intimidate and create enough panic in the minds of school administrators that they'll turn their backs on young people and their families."
He also apparently sued the University of Wisconsin claiming their fess violated his first amednment rights because they funded such disagreeable things as "Day care" and "WYSPRIG"
I don't see how it is so cut and dried. If these artists have legitimate copyrights and Google is presenting the image in results, it certainly could be argued that is a form of republishing. Whether you agree or not, the issue is not exactly just 'me too.' While there may be an element of that TFA is pretty light on details as to what the plaintiffs are claiming represents unauthorized republishing of their work.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the reality is he probably will just get fired for being irresponsible with company property. I probably wouldn't fire him, but I bet they will. This is their flagship product.
Not really an 'upside', but I think the most common usage is for ads.
I saw this too, it was fascinating. Though there really is that worry of becoming like the guy who did both.
Says the AC :)
So obviously the requirements for sustaining life may not be exactly the same as those that are required to create it. What I mean is, millions of years ago on earth (or about 6000 years give or take) when that primordial soup formed a few amino acids/protein chain/whatever perhaps that required water? And in the millennial of evolution some of the organisms evolved to live without water. Does this make sense? I guess what I am really asking is how much do we know about the conditions that existed when life on earth was created?
Is it on par with Crytek and Unreal with post processing, shaders, motion blur, anisotropic filtering, AA etc? (Honestly curious, don't know the answer). If so, what's the major difference between a game and a graphics engine?
Thank you for being one of only of the only people that gets it. All this Flash/Adobe hate is going to come back and bite the geek community in the ass 1000 times worse when sites start not rendering unless you allow the canvas tag.
You have been able to deep link into Flash for years. And honestly, if you think touchscreen phones are over glorified, I'm not sure why you're involving yourself in this debate at all.
It's like you brought a big swath of your lawn up in here, laid it down, and asked everyone to get off of it.
Recently there used to be a feature to "ban" a result (like experts exchange) but they removed it in favor of only being able to "star" results you like. I'll have to say this seemed the single best feature they had ever added to search results. It was very useful to be able to identify (for myself) who was gaming the results. But apparently google thinks I'm better off with the safety of little pretty stars.
Thanks for the link n/t
Really? Because he didnt back any of his claims up and he looks modded informative to me. Par for slashdot I guess.
Android yes, iPhone no. What are the 7 resolutions you speak of? Care to point them out? I'm excluding tablet-based for the moment. And the 3 I think of are 480x320 (G1, Magic, Eris, Hero, Moment, MyTouch3G), 480x854 (Droid), 480x800 (Nexus One).
I was making no claim as to which platform is easier to develop for, makes more or less money, or about his argument regarding the iPhone. Just pointing out that the "fragmentation" of Android resolutions is more hype than fact.
So please explain why you think my comment was disingenuous.
It would also be helpful if they put some time into investigating permalancing, unpaid internships, and the unethical practice of performing credit checks on applicants.
Luckily, 16 states are looking into banning credit checks, and unpaid internships are being looked at as well.
There are only really 2-3 screen size for Android phones. And Android has some excellent APIs for handling auto scaling and whatnot. This "drawback" is a FUD myth much as the one you are countering about iPhones.
Er, huh? Apple made Cubase the de-facto standard on PCs when they BOUGHT Logic and discontinued support for Windows.
More excuses. And this argument is just silly. They have only ever really had to support 2 types of hardware that they control. MS has had to deal with thousands upon thousands of different configurations. Not saying one is better than the other, (they are just different philosophies). But it's not like Apple had some unbelievably smooth transition from OS9 to OSX because they banned java from the platform. Seriously, think about what you're saying.
There is also evidence that Apple changing their API would cause such a delay on Adobe's part as to cause a loss in quality for the user experience. If Apple were to change the API in a way that wasn't backward compatible then, yes, everyone would have to scramble to update, but how likely are they to lock out the old version of their own hardware when they only support a handful of hardware they control?
Furthermore, Apple already reserves the right to reject any app, and look at how many bad ones are there now. This is about hatred for Adobe, don't kid yourself. If this was anyone but Adobe, the Slashdot community would be pissed.
It frustrates me that so few people on Slashdot get this. I understand the visceral hatred for Adobe because Flash has become a standard for advertising, but the platform is so much more that that. And I'm annoyed that people cant see past the ads, especially when I bet 90% of Slashdotters use ad blocking software.
How can they excite the user base if they are locked out of the platform? Similarly, what's the difference between an poor app that makes limited use of the Apple API, and a Flash-created app that makes good use of a more limited Adobe API for cross compiling? You cant tell me every current app out there makes perfect use of each API call such that it shows off the OS's unique strength at every turn. I'm sorry but your technical argument just doesn't hold water. Business wise I think you have a point though, but I think apple still gains, but they seem to think they dont want to gain the same technology as everyone else in the crowd (ie the smartphone market), they want to stand out.
The problem here is, they want to stand out by not including things. Seems awfully counter-intuitive.
Litany of excuses. As the AC said, supposedly, supposedly. The fact of the matter is apple already controls which apps gain approval, so any quality control argument is nonsense. Not to mention some of the undoubtedly bad apps on the app store already. The plain truth is people have come to associate Flash and advertising and have put on emotional blinders to everything else. If this was not about Flash, Slashdot would be outraged.
If it's a UI defense, does apple not allow custom buttons? This is not a rational defense.
Well said. I think this is even true with speed too (to some extent). Sometimes I wonder how much people really care about a 20% speed increase here and there when browsers can load and render lots of sites in 1-2 seconds. Obviously this doesnt include mobile platforms.
Find yourselves a good credit union people. Mine has no ATM fees, refunds ATM fees that *other* banks charge me, doesnt ever reorder checks to double hit me, has a max fee of $30, and has about the best customer service and relationship of any company I have ever dealt with. And probably about a dozen other good things I can't think of off the top of my head.
There is literally no reason whatsoever to give your money and soul to Citibank or Chase or BoA these days.
You're right, but expect that line to get blurred over time. Look at PBS and NPR: they dont have ads, but they do. Google is starting to do this now with Google maps on Android. They put sponsored links in the search results. While fine and noninvasive in it's present form, over time I would fully expect them to get more invasive until it is as saturated as Television. No corporation can resist a new avenue for advertising revenue. Hell, even nonprofits like NPR/PBS can't.
From TFA:
The paper spoke to a co-author of the legislation. She called the DA's letter "irresponsible" and said it was "laughable to think teachers could be charged for telling students how to use contraception." "Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone," said Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison. "This guy is not a credible legal source on this matter, I'm sorry to say. His purpose is to intimidate and create enough panic in the minds of school administrators that they'll turn their backs on young people and their families."
He also apparently sued the University of Wisconsin claiming their fess violated his first amednment rights because they funded such disagreeable things as "Day care" and "WYSPRIG"
Sadly it seems he won his $160 back.
http://www.nacua.org/documents/southworth.html
What an asshole.
I don't see how it is so cut and dried. If these artists have legitimate copyrights and Google is presenting the image in results, it certainly could be argued that is a form of republishing. Whether you agree or not, the issue is not exactly just 'me too.' While there may be an element of that TFA is pretty light on details as to what the plaintiffs are claiming represents unauthorized republishing of their work.