Your position is so painfully divorced for reality I have a hard time believing it's not simply an intentional troll.
In any business, if management asked for you to provide a solution that does X and your response was "We can't, because choosing any of the workable platforms will result in vendor lock-in", you would be fired with cause almost immediately. And frankly, you should be. The job of a business developer is not to be religious about technology -- it is to solve problems with technology.
Maybe in happy magic candy land you can sit around and wait for a tool or platform that hits everything on your list of turn-ons and avoids everything on your list of turn-offs, but in the real world people need to get shit done, and the want-date for shit being done is almost always 'yesterday' and not 'five years from now.'
I know lots of people who have no problem running Steam games offline. It doesn't work even semi-reliably on my machine.
I threw about an hour or two at trying to figure out why and reading Steam support forums before deciding that it would be a simpler solution to just not buy anything on Steam again. I don't have enough free time to make spending more of it troubleshooting Steam seem like a good idea.
At this point, calling Flash dead is like saying that people who buy cars are chumps because we'll all have flying cars instead someday -- a statement that makes sense only if you utterly ignore reality.
See my above responses; the definition of a "sex offender" is too broad. However, we should fix that definition rather than neutering the "sex offender" laws in the subset of cases where they are appropriate.
You fail to address why you prefer the person that pee'ed in the bushes at night cuz he had to go deserves having his life destroyed, and if you would prefer that person put away while the same murderer comes to visit your house...
I fail to address that because I don't prefer that.
Our "sex crime" category is much too broad, but that doesn't mean the ideas around it aren't valid in some cases.
Show me someone who never did anything stupid as a kid, and I'll show you someone who can't possibly raise his kids "right" because he's never going to have any.
That's a pretty good idea, but it doesn't stop your friends from still tagging photos of you with your real name. This is true even if you don't have a Facebook account.
Anyone could be doing it, but the fact remains that Google is doing it and, typically, is pushing the standard / state of the art of what kind of information is collected, indexed, and sold forward.
If we assume that this level of indexing is a bad thing, then "but someone else could do it if they didn't" is a terrible defense for it. (If we assume it's not a bad thing, it requires no defense.)
What I feel like a lot of people in this discussion are missing (and the post I'm replying to speaks to) is that some people just don't have the capability to focus on something even when they want to. There are many tasks you just can't do, no matter how smart you are, if you also can't focus.
A generation or two ago we treated the lack of ability to focus as a moral failing. Now it's something we try to fix, sometimes with drugs. If we over-medicate or over-diagnose now, sure, that's a problem, and one we should try to correct -- but that state of things still beats telling a smart kid who wants to be an engineer that he's too lazy and should learn a trade instead.
You'd think that on Slashdot of all places people could get behind that, but instead half of the posts are going off on psychiatry like it's a scientologist convention up in here.
Imagine a site that not only allowed you to collaborate on interactive stories but also added inventory, hit points, etc. Basically pre-recorded D&D in text form. Anything out there similar to that?
Most MUDs? Granted, they won't all meet your personal standard of what's close enough to that description, but there's enough variety out there that at least one should.
2011 year will be the year of the linux desktop, though people will know it as the chromium-os desktop, to an extent. Will it be ubiquitous, Feh! No, of course not!
Then I'd humbly suggest that you have an odd standard for what constitutes a 'Year of the Linux Desktop' if this qualifies but nothing so far has.
Eh. I think it's possible to release information that exposes scammers and war criminals without also putting specific innocent people at greater risk.
There being a good side to leaking doesn't mean you (or they) should ignore or fail to minimize, to the best of their ability, the downsides.
1) Bradley Manning chose to leak the documents, knowing that he would be punished for the leak. In this case I can't feel sorry for him -- he knew what the consequences would be and made a choice. That's his right as an adult.
2) Bradley Manning was dumb enough to think that releasing the documents, which pretty well narrow down who and where he, the leaker, could be, under the alias 'bradass87' rendered him anonymous, and the U.S. government would never figure out who he was. In this case I can't feel sorry for him because it would mean he's one of the stupidest people alive.
Are you sure you didn't (accidentally?) hide FourSquare posts? A variety of people I have on Facebook have been spamming me with their FourSquare autoposts for a while now.
Probably the problem is that if some version of IE doesn't support it, it's dead to a (now slim) majority of people.
Some people are hardcore enough technology purists that they're willing to flip the bird to a majority of the market. Very few successful businesses are.
Really. Is that going to happen on the year of Linux on the desktop, or the year that Duke Nukem Forever comes out?
Maybe web technology as we know it really will go away someday -- but considering I've heard someone predict that it was about to every year for the last 15 or so, I'm not holding my breath.
At least when I see an Apple user I know he is different, intellectual person I can have a good conversation with.
Also, I understand that Windows people are despicable and wear black hats to symbolize their black hearts, whereas the good guys with Apple gear wear white hats to demonstrate their purity. (Or it's turtlenecks and the colors are reversed. I get confused.)
Slashdot Mirror
Your position is so painfully divorced for reality I have a hard time believing it's not simply an intentional troll.
In any business, if management asked for you to provide a solution that does X and your response was "We can't, because choosing any of the workable platforms will result in vendor lock-in", you would be fired with cause almost immediately. And frankly, you should be. The job of a business developer is not to be religious about technology -- it is to solve problems with technology.
Maybe in happy magic candy land you can sit around and wait for a tool or platform that hits everything on your list of turn-ons and avoids everything on your list of turn-offs, but in the real world people need to get shit done, and the want-date for shit being done is almost always 'yesterday' and not 'five years from now.'
Same here.
I know lots of people who have no problem running Steam games offline. It doesn't work even semi-reliably on my machine.
I threw about an hour or two at trying to figure out why and reading Steam support forums before deciding that it would be a simpler solution to just not buy anything on Steam again. I don't have enough free time to make spending more of it troubleshooting Steam seem like a good idea.
At this point, calling Flash dead is like saying that people who buy cars are chumps because we'll all have flying cars instead someday -- a statement that makes sense only if you utterly ignore reality.
At this point, HTML5 is like communism -- workable in theory, but only in theory.
In the real world, people choose between solutions that work for a majority of users right now.
Neither is the correct answer. Or more specifically, HTML5.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Or that would be the analogy, if HTML5 adoption wasn't in its infancy and inconsistently implemented where it is supported.
See my above responses; the definition of a "sex offender" is too broad. However, we should fix that definition rather than neutering the "sex offender" laws in the subset of cases where they are appropriate.
Fair point. Consider me amended to "I'd rather be robbed than raped."
You fail to address why you prefer the person that pee'ed in the bushes at night cuz he had to go deserves having his life destroyed, and if you would prefer that person put away while the same murderer comes to visit your house...
I fail to address that because I don't prefer that.
Our "sex crime" category is much too broad, but that doesn't mean the ideas around it aren't valid in some cases.
It depends on the sex crime.
I'd rather someone bust into my house with a shotgun and rob me than rape my children, yeah. I might even rather be murdered.
If that seems irrational to you, then you may be at an impasse with most of society.
You have unreasonable expectations.
Show me someone who never did anything stupid as a kid, and I'll show you someone who can't possibly raise his kids "right" because he's never going to have any.
That's a pretty good idea, but it doesn't stop your friends from still tagging photos of you with your real name. This is true even if you don't have a Facebook account.
Anyone could be doing it, but the fact remains that Google is doing it and, typically, is pushing the standard / state of the art of what kind of information is collected, indexed, and sold forward.
If we assume that this level of indexing is a bad thing, then "but someone else could do it if they didn't" is a terrible defense for it. (If we assume it's not a bad thing, it requires no defense.)
This is a good post.
What I feel like a lot of people in this discussion are missing (and the post I'm replying to speaks to) is that some people just don't have the capability to focus on something even when they want to. There are many tasks you just can't do, no matter how smart you are, if you also can't focus.
A generation or two ago we treated the lack of ability to focus as a moral failing. Now it's something we try to fix, sometimes with drugs. If we over-medicate or over-diagnose now, sure, that's a problem, and one we should try to correct -- but that state of things still beats telling a smart kid who wants to be an engineer that he's too lazy and should learn a trade instead.
You'd think that on Slashdot of all places people could get behind that, but instead half of the posts are going off on psychiatry like it's a scientologist convention up in here.
Imagine a site that not only allowed you to collaborate on interactive stories but also added inventory, hit points, etc. Basically pre-recorded D&D in text form. Anything out there similar to that?
Most MUDs? Granted, they won't all meet your personal standard of what's close enough to that description, but there's enough variety out there that at least one should.
2011 year will be the year of the linux desktop, though people will know it as the chromium-os desktop, to an extent. Will it be ubiquitous, Feh! No, of course not!
Then I'd humbly suggest that you have an odd standard for what constitutes a 'Year of the Linux Desktop' if this qualifies but nothing so far has.
Eh. I think it's possible to release information that exposes scammers and war criminals without also putting specific innocent people at greater risk.
There being a good side to leaking doesn't mean you (or they) should ignore or fail to minimize, to the best of their ability, the downsides.
Basically there's two possibilities:
1) Bradley Manning chose to leak the documents, knowing that he would be punished for the leak. In this case I can't feel sorry for him -- he knew what the consequences would be and made a choice. That's his right as an adult.
2) Bradley Manning was dumb enough to think that releasing the documents, which pretty well narrow down who and where he, the leaker, could be, under the alias 'bradass87' rendered him anonymous, and the U.S. government would never figure out who he was. In this case I can't feel sorry for him because it would mean he's one of the stupidest people alive.
So, either way I don't feel bad for him.
Are you sure you didn't (accidentally?) hide FourSquare posts? A variety of people I have on Facebook have been spamming me with their FourSquare autoposts for a while now.
Strangely, everyone (including me) hates all of Adobe's products; however, none of them have yet been replaced successfully in the market.
I couldn't begin to guess what it is, but they must be doing something right. (For relative values of 'right')
Probably the problem is that if some version of IE doesn't support it, it's dead to a (now slim) majority of people.
Some people are hardcore enough technology purists that they're willing to flip the bird to a majority of the market. Very few successful businesses are.
Really. Is that going to happen on the year of Linux on the desktop, or the year that Duke Nukem Forever comes out?
Maybe web technology as we know it really will go away someday -- but considering I've heard someone predict that it was about to every year for the last 15 or so, I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, HTML5 is an open standard meaning that everyone is free to implement it,
Does anyone, based on the history of web browsers, believe they'll all implement it in a consistent way, even when they do implement it?
If so, what makes you think this time will be different from every other time so far?
Ah hell. I made the mistake of taking that poster seriously. Reading it again it's obvious satire. Whoosh for me.
At least when I see an Apple user I know he is different, intellectual person I can have a good conversation with.
Also, I understand that Windows people are despicable and wear black hats to symbolize their black hearts, whereas the good guys with Apple gear wear white hats to demonstrate their purity. (Or it's turtlenecks and the colors are reversed. I get confused.)
You know, I was kind of wondering where this move left Brightkite. Potential acquisition target? #3 to be and out?