yea, my mistake, I meant objective-C. If it was actually C# it would be slightly more flexible, since it would then have affinities with all of Microsoft's.NET game development stuff (XNA), but objective-C really only has traction in the Mac universe.
Even if the iPhone is enormously successful, there's no way it poses a threat to Java phone games.
1. The iPhone's market share is a tiny drop in the global bucket, even if all the Apple-loving tech media journalists would like to have you think otherwise. 2. iPhone game development restricts you to a MacOS development environment. This basically guarantees that even if the iPhone becomes hugely successful, its place in mobile game development will never capture more than a minority status among game developers. 3. Unless all of the other mobile industry players spontaneously decide to line up behind Apple, Java is not going to lose ground to C# anytime soon as the language of choice for game developers. 4. Java is a programming language and a set of industry standards for mobile hardware, not mobile phone hardware itself. Pointing to the cool new hardware features that the iPhone supports isn't an argument against java phone games, it just points towards Apple's decision not to play nice with the rest of the industry standard apps and developers out there. If anything, this decision will limit the scope iPhone-specific game development (who wants to waste their resources on such a small market segment when they can make games that will run on a much larger amount of phones out there), it doesn't pose any threat to the use of Java as a mobile game development standard. At the very least, it means that Java game developers will have to wait for Sun (or any other company) to provide a good set of translation tools that will let them develop for the iPhone's hardware in Java.
Nah, even open casket is still too proprietary (look but don't touch). Linus would probably go with a full autopsy plus organ/cadaver donation, subject of course to a strict GPLv2 license to make sure his skin isn't bottled up and sold to be used for penis enlarging, for example.
welcome our new robot overlords...err, wait...or not...truth be damned, could someone please just tell the Blogonet to come to a hasty consensus and make up my feeble mind already?
But Wikileaks simply succumbed to an overwhelming demand of visitors. This news story is like saying "Look! People are actually reading shit about the Tibetan protests rather than trying to find out who Paris Hilton's new best friend is going to be! Oh my god!"
Sounds like this story needs a 'suddenoutbreakofcommonsense' tag, asap.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he just means "radical" in a "not politics as usual" sense, not in a Slashdot crowd sense....unless he's a surfer, or a ninja turtle...in which case he should definitely be modded up.
The video mentions that he has 'applied for a patent on the gameplay'. Is this a necessary step these days for independent/homebrew developers, so that their new ideas aren't simply snatched up by the big guys for their own benefit? Or is this move something that should be discouraged in the indie scene?
yup, he sure is the same demi...i remember he developed a pretty cool homebrew Game Boy Color puzzle game back in the day, glad to see he's still at it.
From the real story of Tetris as told by Vadim Gerasimov (if Pajitnov is the father of Tetris, this guy is the overworked, unrecognized bastard child):
"Pajitnov's efforts to sell the games together failed. We decided to give our friends free copies of the games including Tetris. The games quickly spread around. When the freely distributed PC version of Tetris got outside of the Soviet Union and a foreign company expressed an interest in licensing Tetris, Pajitnov decided to abandon all the games but Tetris. The decision made Pavlovsky very unhappy and destroyed our team."
Pretty ironic that it was only through distributing free copies of Tetris at first that Pajitnov was able to successfully market this infamous game (and completely downplay the help of his buddies who helped him create and distribute it in the process).
Sounds like you've managed to steer completely clear of Ubuntu, which fulfills exactly the need you're describing here. Try it out, it will probably make you think twice about making a post like this again. I had also turned my back on desktop Linux distributions a handful of times, until Ubuntu finally gave me a user-friendly desktop to stick with.
Hubert Dreyfus has wrote a great deal on this topic, and provides extremely compelling arguments as to why we'll never have human type AI.
Compelling arguments, perhaps, but only to your supple, human brain and its weakness for non-representational information. I'm sure the computers would disagree.
natural language is based on a ambiguous grammar, thus a multitude of interpretations exists. To assume otherwise is a fallacy of logic and amounts to no more than an exercise in futility.
To call any attempt at structured interpretation of meaning an exercise in futility because a multitude of interpretations exists is itself an exercise in futility - otherwise known as the standard philosophical position of 'post-structuralism'. Programmers, on the other hand, create meaning out of ambiguity by cobbling together stable, unambiguous grammars smack in the middle of all the unknowns and uncertainties of the human world and all of its messy, natural language. And you can feel free to quote Godel and call computer code a fallacy of logic, but you know what, sometimes it manages to actually get some things done.
These buffoons have been taught that explosives can be made out of common household items, but they lack that special magic we call INTELLECT to understand that the reverse is equally true.
Holy crap, common household items can made out of explosives? Please, tell me more!
A plea to the web community to stop pinging the W3C DTDs isn't going to solve anything. What will work is blocking any unnecessary DTD traffic aggressively, and if that doesn't do the job, blocking it even more aggressively. Intelligently designed software / ISPs / routers will cache, filter and block these requests for the sake of their own efficiency, bandwidth, and proper function. Buggy, bloated and inefficient applications won't. Nothing's ever going to convince the 'web community' to stop pinging the DTDs out of an altruistic concern for W3C's servers, it will need to become beneficial for those software developers to devote the extra development/debugging/patching efforts to do so.
Re:Errrm, folks, what's the big fat hairy deal?
on
The Future of XML
·
· Score: 1
Talking about the future of XML is allmost like talking about the future of the wheel ("Scientist ask: Will it ever get any rounder?").
OK, far too many comments have made criticisms of OpenID claiming that since it gives you the ability to have a single sign-on it is a bad idea because it gives your identity a single point of failure. This is a blatantly false argument.
OpenID != single point of failure. You can easily go right ahead and use multiple OpenID authentication identities, multiple OpenID providers even, to manage your multiple accounts. You can manage a separate identity for each individual site just as easily as you currently manage a different username and password for each individual site. Except the thing is, nobody will want to bother to micromanage their authentication for every single service anymore, when it's simply not necessary.
Server-side account logins REQUIRE you to place blind trust in the security of their system. This means that if their server gets hacked, any data you shared with them is up for grabs, and there's nothing you can do about it but complain.
You're placing trust not only in the security of that one authenticated identity, but also in the security of any other identities that might be even remotely associated with it - including other sites you might have used the same login/password for, your e-mail address (if a password reminder/reset function is provided), your browser (stored passwords), or even your own birthdate/social security/mother's maiden name (for sites that let you re-authenticate through 'private' questions).
OpenID is inherently more secure because it lets YOU control the method of every single authentication, whether you choose to control just one ID or manage many, and manage your own network of security without being forced to introduce a new possibly weak link (or the inconvenience of yet another password to keep track of) into your system every time you want to authenticate with someone different.
I really hope that the OpenID crew works harder on clearing up this confusion, since if the Slashdot consensus can't even get it right, I really can't imagine that all of the other AOL/Google/Yahoo/etc users will ever even come close.
Also Dbus is not friendly on laptops as the event model prevents many models from going to a power saving mode wasting battery power. I wonder if this has been resolved.
Hmm, so that explains why power-saving mode worked correctly on my laptop in Gutsy but broke when I updated to the Hardy alpha...I guess the answer then would be no, it hasn't been resolved.
It's not like sticking with their old protocol got them anything.
You're joking, right? AIM coasted along with a bloated, ad-ridden client (that refused to support basic message logging) for years in spite of much better-developed, more feature-rich software popping up regularly. They were able to hang onto a majority of the instant messaging user base for so long thanks to a combination of their existing majority AOL user base and their (initially closed to competitors) proprietary network protocol. I'd say that sticking with their old protocol got them quite a lot over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
yea, my mistake, I meant objective-C. If it was actually C# it would be slightly more flexible, since it would then have affinities with all of Microsoft's .NET game development stuff (XNA), but objective-C really only has traction in the Mac universe.
Even if the iPhone is enormously successful, there's no way it poses a threat to Java phone games.
1. The iPhone's market share is a tiny drop in the global bucket, even if all the Apple-loving tech media journalists would like to have you think otherwise.
2. iPhone game development restricts you to a MacOS development environment. This basically guarantees that even if the iPhone becomes hugely successful, its place in mobile game development will never capture more than a minority status among game developers.
3. Unless all of the other mobile industry players spontaneously decide to line up behind Apple, Java is not going to lose ground to C# anytime soon as the language of choice for game developers.
4. Java is a programming language and a set of industry standards for mobile hardware, not mobile phone hardware itself. Pointing to the cool new hardware features that the iPhone supports isn't an argument against java phone games, it just points towards Apple's decision not to play nice with the rest of the industry standard apps and developers out there. If anything, this decision will limit the scope iPhone-specific game development (who wants to waste their resources on such a small market segment when they can make games that will run on a much larger amount of phones out there), it doesn't pose any threat to the use of Java as a mobile game development standard. At the very least, it means that Java game developers will have to wait for Sun (or any other company) to provide a good set of translation tools that will let them develop for the iPhone's hardware in Java.
Nah, even open casket is still too proprietary (look but don't touch). Linus would probably go with a full autopsy plus organ/cadaver donation, subject of course to a strict GPLv2 license to make sure his skin isn't bottled up and sold to be used for penis enlarging, for example.
That's the same exact logic that brought us the drinking straw.
You have your Q's and A's mixed up
Like he said, he's using KDE4, it's still got a few bugs to work out~
welcome our new robot overlords...err, wait...or not...truth be damned, could someone please just tell the Blogonet to come to a hasty consensus and make up my feeble mind already?
In order to interpret the results, these researchers must know which signs indicate sexual interest in females!
Clearly, this is the most significant research finding of the century!
But Wikileaks simply succumbed to an overwhelming demand of visitors. This news story is like saying "Look! People are actually reading shit about the Tibetan protests rather than trying to find out who Paris Hilton's new best friend is going to be! Oh my god!"
Sounds like this story needs a 'suddenoutbreakofcommonsense' tag, asap.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he just means "radical" in a "not politics as usual" sense, not in a Slashdot crowd sense. ...unless he's a surfer, or a ninja turtle...in which case he should definitely be modded up.
The video mentions that he has 'applied for a patent on the gameplay'. Is this a necessary step these days for independent/homebrew developers, so that their new ideas aren't simply snatched up by the big guys for their own benefit? Or is this move something that should be discouraged in the indie scene?
yup, he sure is the same demi...i remember he developed a pretty cool homebrew Game Boy Color puzzle game back in the day, glad to see he's still at it.
From the real story of Tetris as told by Vadim Gerasimov (if Pajitnov is the father of Tetris, this guy is the overworked, unrecognized bastard child):
"Pajitnov's efforts to sell the games together failed. We decided to give our friends free copies of the games including Tetris. The games quickly spread around. When the freely distributed PC version of Tetris got outside of the Soviet Union and a foreign company expressed an interest in licensing Tetris, Pajitnov decided to abandon all the games but Tetris. The decision made Pavlovsky very unhappy and destroyed our team."
Pretty ironic that it was only through distributing free copies of Tetris at first that Pajitnov was able to successfully market this infamous game (and completely downplay the help of his buddies who helped him create and distribute it in the process).
Sounds like you've managed to steer completely clear of Ubuntu, which fulfills exactly the need you're describing here. Try it out, it will probably make you think twice about making a post like this again. I had also turned my back on desktop Linux distributions a handful of times, until Ubuntu finally gave me a user-friendly desktop to stick with.
Will whoever modded the parent a troll please share his or her logic?
I don't think you'll be getting any response...I can share Slashdot's logic on the reason for that if you'd like.
Hubert Dreyfus has wrote a great deal on this topic, and provides extremely compelling arguments as to why we'll never have human type AI.
Compelling arguments, perhaps, but only to your supple, human brain and its weakness for non-representational information. I'm sure the computers would disagree.
personally, i don't think it's that big of a deal...
natural language is based on a ambiguous grammar, thus a multitude of interpretations exists. To assume otherwise is a fallacy of logic and amounts to no more than an exercise in futility.
To call any attempt at structured interpretation of meaning an exercise in futility because a multitude of interpretations exists is itself an exercise in futility - otherwise known as the standard philosophical position of 'post-structuralism'. Programmers, on the other hand, create meaning out of ambiguity by cobbling together stable, unambiguous grammars smack in the middle of all the unknowns and uncertainties of the human world and all of its messy, natural language. And you can feel free to quote Godel and call computer code a fallacy of logic, but you know what, sometimes it manages to actually get some things done.
These buffoons have been taught that explosives can be made out of common household items, but they lack that special magic we call INTELLECT to understand that the reverse is equally true.
Holy crap, common household items can made out of explosives? Please, tell me more!
Photos of this amazing interstellar phenomenon here.
A plea to the web community to stop pinging the W3C DTDs isn't going to solve anything. What will work is blocking any unnecessary DTD traffic aggressively, and if that doesn't do the job, blocking it even more aggressively. Intelligently designed software / ISPs / routers will cache, filter and block these requests for the sake of their own efficiency, bandwidth, and proper function. Buggy, bloated and inefficient applications won't. Nothing's ever going to convince the 'web community' to stop pinging the DTDs out of an altruistic concern for W3C's servers, it will need to become beneficial for those software developers to devote the extra development/debugging/patching efforts to do so.
Talking about the future of XML is allmost like talking about the future of the wheel ("Scientist ask: Will it ever get any rounder?").
So XML is the pi of data, then?
OK, far too many comments have made criticisms of OpenID claiming that since it gives you the ability to have a single sign-on it is a bad idea because it gives your identity a single point of failure. This is a blatantly false argument.
OpenID != single point of failure. You can easily go right ahead and use multiple OpenID authentication identities, multiple OpenID providers even, to manage your multiple accounts. You can manage a separate identity for each individual site just as easily as you currently manage a different username and password for each individual site. Except the thing is, nobody will want to bother to micromanage their authentication for every single service anymore, when it's simply not necessary.
Server-side account logins REQUIRE you to place blind trust in the security of their system. This means that if their server gets hacked, any data you shared with them is up for grabs, and there's nothing you can do about it but complain.
You're placing trust not only in the security of that one authenticated identity, but also in the security of any other identities that might be even remotely associated with it - including other sites you might have used the same login/password for, your e-mail address (if a password reminder/reset function is provided), your browser (stored passwords), or even your own birthdate/social security/mother's maiden name (for sites that let you re-authenticate through 'private' questions).
OpenID is inherently more secure because it lets YOU control the method of every single authentication, whether you choose to control just one ID or manage many, and manage your own network of security without being forced to introduce a new possibly weak link (or the inconvenience of yet another password to keep track of) into your system every time you want to authenticate with someone different.
I really hope that the OpenID crew works harder on clearing up this confusion, since if the Slashdot consensus can't even get it right, I really can't imagine that all of the other AOL/Google/Yahoo/etc users will ever even come close.
Also Dbus is not friendly on laptops as the event model prevents many models from going to a power saving mode wasting battery power. I wonder if this has been resolved.
Hmm, so that explains why power-saving mode worked correctly on my laptop in Gutsy but broke when I updated to the Hardy alpha...I guess the answer then would be no, it hasn't been resolved.
Rofl - Time sink? More like a time vortex that not only wastes time playing, but wastes productive hours thinking about it when you should be working.
Oh, for the good old days when even little kids used to be productive, ploughing real fields instead of farming gold. More work, less play!
It's not like sticking with their old protocol got them anything.
You're joking, right? AIM coasted along with a bloated, ad-ridden client (that refused to support basic message logging) for years in spite of much better-developed, more feature-rich software popping up regularly. They were able to hang onto a majority of the instant messaging user base for so long thanks to a combination of their existing majority AOL user base and their (initially closed to competitors) proprietary network protocol. I'd say that sticking with their old protocol got them quite a lot over the years.