Again, I'm sure both you and your father have a large collection of CDs hidden down in the basement that you havn't listened to in years. Some of the music you buy ends up being truly good music that you will continue to listen to for years and years. Others, well they just don't age that well.
Of course if I ever do really want to satisfy an urge for nostalgia, I am free to listen to whatever I want from my youth, even those mediocre songs that bring back memories of when I listened to them on the radio, but which I never felt compelled to buy (and I'm still not willing to shell out a buck a song for from iTunes).
And besides, as I told the other poster, those downloads from iTunes aren't going to last forever either...
"
I still listen to CDs (ripped, of course) I bought when I was a teenager."
I'm sure you have a few CDs you still listen to, but are you telling me you don't have a single CD that you don't occasionally look at only to think "what the hell was I high on when I bought that one"?
"
Do you really want to be paying $10/month (or more, if they change their TOS) for the rest of your life to maintain your "collection"?"
Anything I love I go ahead and buy a hard copy (with that ancient technology known as CDs) of.
You people who are buying music from iTunes hoping to keep it forever are for in a big surprise come the day when a virus wipes out your hard drive and you realize you had forgotten to back up all your data.
Well first of all, considering how long most people usually spend listening to their music after they purchase it, there really isn't too much of an advantage to being able to keep all the songs you buy forever. How many CDs does the average person have in their closet that they havn't listened to in years? Five years from now, are you really going to look at all those hundreds of music files you bought from iTunes and thank god you paid Apple those hundreds of dollars so you could still listen to some pop song the rest of the world got tired of years ago?
And your analogy is off anyways. Music subscription services don't have 'rental periods' like Blockbuster, you keep it as long as you pay for it. Its not going to drive me into financial ruin to stay subscribed, as their price is a fraction of my cable bill, phone bill, electric bill, rent, or pretty much any reoccuring payment. Unless I am downloading fewer than 10 songs a month, I'm saving money compared to what I would pay at iTunes. And if I really want to quit and keep something longer, I can 'purchase' it at 80% the price of iTunes (though usually in that case I would just go out and purchase the album).
I pay less than two cents per song from Yahoo! Unlimited. $10 a month for as many songs as you want. Something like iTunes is fine for getting a few hit songs that you want (in which case its not that expensive at all, I mean thats less than a large fries at a fast food restaurant), but not for filling up your music collection.
It is not clear from the summary exactly what the argument is (and the "article" is just a blog saying the exact same thing, and its link is yet another blog mentioning this supposed argument, so I have yet to see an actual article regarding this), but if they are arguing that you cannot distribute files even if you got them legally (such as if you ripped them from your personal CD collection), that is almost certainly illegal.
Of course it would be easier to know for sure what the argument is if the editors stopped letting people use/. as nothing more than a clone of their blog...
He said "whole applications", thus I listed languages that could be used to develop "whole applications". And actually, I have seen attempts to develop 'standalone' apps (ok, you download an executable, click on it, and it launches a Flash app in a web browser, so they are not truly standalone) with Flash, so they really were appropriate.
But knowing most people use Flash to develop web apps, I made sure I included two, possible three, that can be deployed as Rich Internet Applications.
So far we have videos (which really isn't an application like I was asking for) and kid's games. Virtually everything else presented by the dozen or so Flash fans that have responded to me could easily have been made with other technologies such as Ajax. Yes, that is harder to write, but the app's quality would be much better.
As for your newsmap site, that is a horrible example for a rich client application. First of all, it keeps on reloading whenever something minor happens to change the layout (and when that happens, it hogs resources), I can't read half the text, I am unable to interact with it like a normal web page (mouse gestures are useless here), etc. It could have just as easily been made with an image map generated on the server and gotten around much of that without sacrificing anything in the interface. Now I suppose if had generated the thing on my client and thus didn't have to reload, that may be something. However, that would likely hog even more resources even more of the time.
A quick glance at the "about" though shows this product for what it is, a demonstration of a technology. So I guess we can add that to our list of uses for Flash, application prototypes.
"I'm just saying what I know. Having developed software for many mid-sized companies, I have never been asked to take this into consideration. I know this isn't the case for all software, but it certainly is for some."
Yes, many people fail to take it into consideration. That doesn't mean its not a problem.
"
And as far as a proprietary VM, if you're letting this hold you back, then be sure to stay away from C# and Sun's Java VM (I know there are OSS ones, but anything decent?)."
I believe C# has an open source VM, and Java is an open standard so anyone is free to develop their own.
"While it would be nice to have OS access, I'm sure you understand the reasons why you're prevented from doing so."
As I said before, I am aware of the security issues involved in writing web apps. I am aware that web app technologies like Flash and Javascript will never have access to the OS. But that doesn't change the fact that it severly limits the number of "whole applications" you can make with it.
They are not using Flash as an application, but as a means to view videos. There are dozens of video formats which they could have just as used just as easily (if not easier).
"It's very good for making rich web clients, kind of like what XMLHttpRequest allows you to do, but better. "
If all you want to do is make a pretty interface, sure, you can use Flash. But then you have completely missed the point of the World Wide Web.
"Java could have, but applets never succeeded."
Actually Java (with other technologies) is heavily used in web applications. Buts thats another story, for now I'll let you go on thinking Java is only used in applets.
Do you know why applet based webpages are not that popular nowadays? For the same reasons Flash based webpages cause headaches for nearly everyone who uses them.
"
Okay, now I know who I'm dealing with here - someone who doesn't know what they're talking about."
Are you claiming that Flash can interact with the operating system? Or are you one of those people who took a night class on Internet technologies and now thinks web applications can do everything? If the latter is true, let me assure you, there are many applications that do need functionality stuff like Flash simply cannot provide.
Still waiting for that scenario where Flash is the best man for the job...
"
Accessibility isn't a requirement for a lot of software."
Sure...
...if you don't want your application to be available to the general public (many of whom have disabilities that need to be taken into account).
"
There aren't any requirements to work with 3rd party proprietary software, as many OSS development tools exist...unless you're talking about the Flash Player itself."
Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about.
"
What do you mean? Why should it be able to interact with the OS. It's a web technology."
No, web technologies should not be able to interact with the OS. Thus that is going to be a limitation with every web app. That doesn't mean it isn't a limitation. It serverly limits the number of "whole applications" that can be developed with Flash.
I still havn't heard of a potential use where Flash is clearly the best choice...
"You can create whole applications with it... when there is an appropriate use for it of course. "
You know what else can create "whole applications"? Java, C++, C#, C, Perl, Python, Javascript, Fortran, Cobol, Ada, Visual Basic, Smalltalk, Assembly, need I go on? The fact that you can create "whole applications" with it isn't really something to be proud of.
Show me one instance where Flash truly is the best choice out there. Show me one instance where the negatives attributes of Flash (ie accessibility problems, requirements for third party proprietary software, an inability to interact with the operating system, etc.) are outweighed by the positive attribute (it makes it easy for third graders to make pretty webpages).
She is a six year old girl. Thats a bit young to use a service like Yahoo's main games site. If you really want to let a six year old play on the net, please save us all an Amber alert and make sure she is only on a site dedicated for kids.
Again, my point wasn't that women or people who don't wear "big glasses and white lab coats" can't go into science, but that someone with the diminished IQ illustrated by the author of that comment most likely doesn't have what it takes to make it in such a dicipline.
I know what cancer is, I know how it works, I know there are many different varients, and I know how it is traditionally treated. And based on your post, I actually know more about it than you (for instance, it is generally difficult to use a knife to remove a tumor after it has metastasized, which it must do in order to be the medical condition known as cancer. Surgery is usually the treatment for benign tumors, not cancer).
I wasn't suggesting that medical researchers are developing a pill that, when taken, will instantly turn a terminal cancer paitent. I was making a figurative reference. You don't have to take everything under the sun so literally. It serves no function other than demonstrating you to be an ass.
BTW, yes I know space does not have directions like up and down and thus technically nothing is "under the sun". And no, the phrase "demonstrating you to be an ass" was not meant to imply that you are a donkey.
The argument is that robot pets can generate some of the same responses as real pets, just at a much smaller degree. No one is arguing they are "Almost as Good as" real pets.
Yeah, it would be great for us to have more women going into the sciences. That doesn't mean this particular woman (who thinks if she became a scientists she would have to get thick glasses and wear a white lab coat everywhere she went) is a good candidate. She sounds like she has an IQ at best in the lower 80s. I don't think she ever had a rewarding career in the sciences looking ahead of her.
"This stigma's been pursuing society for ages. There's still some fear (call it fear, call it respect, call it heyiwonttouchititmayburn) towards science, whereas Arts are a far more familiar field."
Are you claiming the arts don't have that stigma? If anything, they are considered even more elitist than the sciences.
You are free to change your product after a final release, its called version 2.0.
The goal of a Beta test is to let users discover all the final annoying little bugs out there before they put out a final release. Keeping something in Beta indefinitely defeats the point of Beta testing.
Slashdot Mirror
I do hope you two were not taking that post too seriously...
I guess this is why MS doesn't listen to /. for advice on how to build their new product.
Tell that to all the coasters I have lying around my office...
Of course if I ever do really want to satisfy an urge for nostalgia, I am free to listen to whatever I want from my youth, even those mediocre songs that bring back memories of when I listened to them on the radio, but which I never felt compelled to buy (and I'm still not willing to shell out a buck a song for from iTunes).
And besides, as I told the other poster, those downloads from iTunes aren't going to last forever either...
I'm sure you have a few CDs you still listen to, but are you telling me you don't have a single CD that you don't occasionally look at only to think "what the hell was I high on when I bought that one"?
" Do you really want to be paying $10/month (or more, if they change their TOS) for the rest of your life to maintain your "collection"?"
Anything I love I go ahead and buy a hard copy (with that ancient technology known as CDs) of.
You people who are buying music from iTunes hoping to keep it forever are for in a big surprise come the day when a virus wipes out your hard drive and you realize you had forgotten to back up all your data.
And your analogy is off anyways. Music subscription services don't have 'rental periods' like Blockbuster, you keep it as long as you pay for it. Its not going to drive me into financial ruin to stay subscribed, as their price is a fraction of my cable bill, phone bill, electric bill, rent, or pretty much any reoccuring payment. Unless I am downloading fewer than 10 songs a month, I'm saving money compared to what I would pay at iTunes. And if I really want to quit and keep something longer, I can 'purchase' it at 80% the price of iTunes (though usually in that case I would just go out and purchase the album).
I pay less than two cents per song from Yahoo! Unlimited. $10 a month for as many songs as you want. Something like iTunes is fine for getting a few hit songs that you want (in which case its not that expensive at all, I mean thats less than a large fries at a fast food restaurant), but not for filling up your music collection.
So I was asking for a situation where Flash is the best language to develop an application in, not merely to distribute media.
Of course it would be easier to know for sure what the argument is if the editors stopped letting people use /. as nothing more than a clone of their blog...
But knowing most people use Flash to develop web apps, I made sure I included two, possible three, that can be deployed as Rich Internet Applications.
As for your newsmap site, that is a horrible example for a rich client application. First of all, it keeps on reloading whenever something minor happens to change the layout (and when that happens, it hogs resources), I can't read half the text, I am unable to interact with it like a normal web page (mouse gestures are useless here), etc. It could have just as easily been made with an image map generated on the server and gotten around much of that without sacrificing anything in the interface. Now I suppose if had generated the thing on my client and thus didn't have to reload, that may be something. However, that would likely hog even more resources even more of the time.
A quick glance at the "about" though shows this product for what it is, a demonstration of a technology. So I guess we can add that to our list of uses for Flash, application prototypes.
Yes, many people fail to take it into consideration. That doesn't mean its not a problem.
" And as far as a proprietary VM, if you're letting this hold you back, then be sure to stay away from C# and Sun's Java VM (I know there are OSS ones, but anything decent?)."
I believe C# has an open source VM, and Java is an open standard so anyone is free to develop their own.
"While it would be nice to have OS access, I'm sure you understand the reasons why you're prevented from doing so."
As I said before, I am aware of the security issues involved in writing web apps. I am aware that web app technologies like Flash and Javascript will never have access to the OS. But that doesn't change the fact that it severly limits the number of "whole applications" you can make with it.
They are not using Flash as an application, but as a means to view videos. There are dozens of video formats which they could have just as used just as easily (if not easier).
If all you want to do is make a pretty interface, sure, you can use Flash. But then you have completely missed the point of the World Wide Web.
"Java could have, but applets never succeeded."
Actually Java (with other technologies) is heavily used in web applications. Buts thats another story, for now I'll let you go on thinking Java is only used in applets.
Do you know why applet based webpages are not that popular nowadays? For the same reasons Flash based webpages cause headaches for nearly everyone who uses them.
" Okay, now I know who I'm dealing with here - someone who doesn't know what they're talking about."
Are you claiming that Flash can interact with the operating system? Or are you one of those people who took a night class on Internet technologies and now thinks web applications can do everything? If the latter is true, let me assure you, there are many applications that do need functionality stuff like Flash simply cannot provide.
Still waiting for that scenario where Flash is the best man for the job...
Sure...
...if you don't want your application to be available to the general public (many of whom have disabilities that need to be taken into account).
" There aren't any requirements to work with 3rd party proprietary software, as many OSS development tools exist...unless you're talking about the Flash Player itself."
Yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about.
" What do you mean? Why should it be able to interact with the OS. It's a web technology."
No, web technologies should not be able to interact with the OS. Thus that is going to be a limitation with every web app. That doesn't mean it isn't a limitation. It serverly limits the number of "whole applications" that can be developed with Flash.
I still havn't heard of a potential use where Flash is clearly the best choice...
You know what else can create "whole applications"? Java, C++, C#, C, Perl, Python, Javascript, Fortran, Cobol, Ada, Visual Basic, Smalltalk, Assembly, need I go on? The fact that you can create "whole applications" with it isn't really something to be proud of.
Show me one instance where Flash truly is the best choice out there. Show me one instance where the negatives attributes of Flash (ie accessibility problems, requirements for third party proprietary software, an inability to interact with the operating system, etc.) are outweighed by the positive attribute (it makes it easy for third graders to make pretty webpages).
She is a six year old girl. Thats a bit young to use a service like Yahoo's main games site. If you really want to let a six year old play on the net, please save us all an Amber alert and make sure she is only on a site dedicated for kids.
Again, my point wasn't that women or people who don't wear "big glasses and white lab coats" can't go into science, but that someone with the diminished IQ illustrated by the author of that comment most likely doesn't have what it takes to make it in such a dicipline.
I wasn't suggesting that medical researchers are developing a pill that, when taken, will instantly turn a terminal cancer paitent. I was making a figurative reference. You don't have to take everything under the sun so literally. It serves no function other than demonstrating you to be an ass.
BTW, yes I know space does not have directions like up and down and thus technically nothing is "under the sun". And no, the phrase "demonstrating you to be an ass" was not meant to imply that you are a donkey.
The argument is that robot pets can generate some of the same responses as real pets, just at a much smaller degree. No one is arguing they are "Almost as Good as" real pets.
Yeah, it would be great for us to have more women going into the sciences. That doesn't mean this particular woman (who thinks if she became a scientists she would have to get thick glasses and wear a white lab coat everywhere she went) is a good candidate. She sounds like she has an IQ at best in the lower 80s. I don't think she ever had a rewarding career in the sciences looking ahead of her.
etc...
Are you claiming the arts don't have that stigma? If anything, they are considered even more elitist than the sciences.
Is it really a problem that this student doesn't want to go into science? For some reason I doubt she was in line to cure cancer anyways...
The goal of a Beta test is to let users discover all the final annoying little bugs out there before they put out a final release. Keeping something in Beta indefinitely defeats the point of Beta testing.