The original "Calson" font mentioned in the article is at least 200 hundred years old, yet there are a number of Calson offering, like from Adobe, costing some $45 bucks.
But isn't that the perfect embodiment of the Free Software business model? You don't pay for the IP, you pay for the distribution and support, just as Richard Stallman once sold tape/disk copies of his Free software.
The world of discussion has gotten so fragmented, and everybody's got to authenticate on each service independently.
That, and the way forums are implemented is a massive pile of recycled smeg. Terrible interfaces, lack of threading, you name it. Slashdot is pretty terrible, but compared to most other forums, it seems good. And what the fuck is up with that BBcode shit? Is HTML so hard you have to invent something else that's just as cumbersome, but non-standard?
Adobe not supporting your platform really does hamper your ability to use the internet.
That's because Adobe has tainted the internet with Flash. If we stuck with standards, we wouldn't depend on Adobe's support of our platforms. That's the whole frickin' point.
It's all about keep selling high markup iDevices. To achieve that they need to make sure to have a lock-in. Lock in is achieved by making sure developers only code for your platform.
Wait, are you talking about Apple or Adobe? Because I'm pretty sure that Adobe is rather keen on developers only developing for the Flash/AIR platform. And if Apple wants to lock developers out of other platforms, then why are they supporting HTML5 and open web standards? Anybody can make a web app that can work on iDevices, without any intervention from Apple. It's Adobe who is arguing for a proprietary web.
It's quite amazing that people are railing against lock-in, and for openness by arguing for Flash.
How would that make the iPlatform dependent on Adobe?
Because if a large amount of developers start using Flash to develop applications with, and then Apple wants to change the development environment, add APIs and features, then Apple is dependent on Adobe updating Flash to support those changes before developers can use them.
This has actually bitten Apple before, when a huge number of Mac developers used Metrowerks Code Warrior to develop Mac apps, but Code Warrior didn't keep up with changes in the APIs.
You make it sound like MacOS X would have benefited by not allowing Photoshop, rather than waiting 10 years for it.
That doesn't make any sense, because Photoshop is not used to develop Mac applications.
If a person is savvy enough to know that an app written in Flash is going to suck, they don't have to us it. Right?
But if a person is not savvy enough to know that, who are they going to blame for the poor performance? They are going to think their iWhatever sucks and has poor battery life, or is slow and unresponsive. They might even call Apple's tech support, or return their device because of it. They certainly aren't going to think it's Adobe's fault. How many typical users even know what Flash is?
The real debate is how apple changed the developer EULA to effectively deny any possibility of a flash developed app running.
No, there are two parallel debates going on. One is over the lack of the Flash plug-in for web browsers on the iThings. The other is about exporting Flash apps to native iPhone apps.
Unfortunately, due to the abysmal state of the tech press, and the general ignorance of its readers and commenters, these two arguments are often confused and you end up with people arguing about different things at the same time. Look at the linked article, for example. It is actually about the Flash player/plug-in, not Flash as an iPhone OS authoring tool. Yet you change the topic to it being about the authoring tool aspect.
Yes, but if you spent your pounds over here, they would be worth a lot more. And let's not get into things like the cost of health care and the impact of the "financial crisis."
They want more efficient games. With “efficient” meaning: More fun for less time. Or: If they are shorter and don’t require as much getting into, they should just as much be more intense.
Simplicity vs. Complexity is kind of missing the point, and I think "efficiency" might be a little off the mark too.
My biggest problem with modern games is that the type of complexity that they introduce doesn't make any sense. One way is that they add some sort of "puzzle" or something to solve. But this puzzle isn't solvable by logic or intelligence, it's just something completely random. This is why game walkthroughs are so popular. Some of the predicaments are just so obtuse and weird.
The other way is that they introduce complexity to the controls. This is particularly common in console games, but not unknown in the PC gaming world, either. I want to be immersed in the game, I don't want to spend the time trying to adapt to whatever weird control scheme or combo of button presses the interface requires.
Or how about the Apple II series? Variants of it were sold from 1977 to 1993. That's right, 16 years spanning the decades of the 1970s to the 1990s, with few changes in basic specs. It even made more money for Apple than the Macintosh for years after the Mac's introduction.
because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.
That doesn't seem correct. I very much doubt that a single anonymous coward posting on slashdot is responsible for the entire world's oil demand. Even if this particular Anonymous Coward didn't use a single oil-based product, I think millions of other people would still want it.
Re:Nope, the winner is Vector Graphics, circa 1980
on
15 Vintage Tech Ads
·
· Score: 1
This would appear to be the associated print ad. [vector-graphic.info]
I'm impressed how they refer to the "rigid disk" system. A couple of decades after the old "floppy" and "hard" disk jokes, they manage to bring fresh humor to the double-entendre.
IMO you shouldn't replace the MS markedroids, they do a great job at convincing their customers. If anything, replace the users with people not stupid enough to fall for such moronic ads over and over again.
I very much doubt it's the ads that sell Microsoft products. Has anyone in history ever bought a Microsoft product due to an ad? Sure, plenty of companies buy due to business-to-business marketing (i.e salespeople), but that's not really the same thing as mass-market advertising.
Also, tech moved so fast that it made less sense to invest.
That's absolutely backwards. Tech moved pretty slowly in the 1980s, a machine made in 1984 wouldn't be that different to one made in 1989. The 1990s had a much more rapid pace of acceleration. Things have slowed down a bit in the 2000s, but by far the most rapid advances were from around 1995 - 2001.
I suppose that depends on which video cards [newegg.com] and SSDs [newegg.com] you use.
The problem with that SSD is that it is slow. One of the main benefits of SSDs is performance. If the SSD you buy doesn't give a marked increase in speed over a hard drive, then why pay 30x as much per GB for?
Slashdot Mirror
The original "Calson" font mentioned in the article is at least 200 hundred years old, yet there are a number of Calson offering, like from Adobe, costing some $45 bucks.
But isn't that the perfect embodiment of the Free Software business model? You don't pay for the IP, you pay for the distribution and support, just as Richard Stallman once sold tape/disk copies of his Free software.
and unlike all the standard browser fonts, these require a licence in order to use.
The "standard" fonts also require a license. It's just that the license has been paid for by your OS vendor.
Can I nominate a second in Papyrus???
Technically, you can, but I'd be very annoyed with you for using the awful Papyrus to nominate the font you want banned.
Is a Beaver Dam anything like the Pirate Bay? Those beavers should probably lawyer up and watch out for the RIAA.
Cheese is a kind of meat
A tasty yellow beef
I milk it from my teat
But I try to be discreet
Ooh, cheese.
Ooh, cheese.
The world of discussion has gotten so fragmented, and everybody's got to authenticate on each service independently.
That, and the way forums are implemented is a massive pile of recycled smeg. Terrible interfaces, lack of threading, you name it. Slashdot is pretty terrible, but compared to most other forums, it seems good. And what the fuck is up with that BBcode shit? Is HTML so hard you have to invent something else that's just as cumbersome, but non-standard?
Apple's control over users, over developers, over content providers...
What about Adobe's control over the internet, developers and content providers?
Adobe not supporting your platform really does hamper your ability to use the internet.
That's because Adobe has tainted the internet with Flash. If we stuck with standards, we wouldn't depend on Adobe's support of our platforms. That's the whole frickin' point.
It's all about keep selling high markup iDevices. To achieve that they need to make sure to have a lock-in. Lock in is achieved by making sure developers only code for your platform.
Wait, are you talking about Apple or Adobe? Because I'm pretty sure that Adobe is rather keen on developers only developing for the Flash/AIR platform. And if Apple wants to lock developers out of other platforms, then why are they supporting HTML5 and open web standards? Anybody can make a web app that can work on iDevices, without any intervention from Apple. It's Adobe who is arguing for a proprietary web.
It's quite amazing that people are railing against lock-in, and for openness by arguing for Flash.
How would that make the iPlatform dependent on Adobe?
Because if a large amount of developers start using Flash to develop applications with, and then Apple wants to change the development environment, add APIs and features, then Apple is dependent on Adobe updating Flash to support those changes before developers can use them.
This has actually bitten Apple before, when a huge number of Mac developers used Metrowerks Code Warrior to develop Mac apps, but Code Warrior didn't keep up with changes in the APIs.
You make it sound like MacOS X would have benefited by not allowing Photoshop, rather than waiting 10 years for it.
That doesn't make any sense, because Photoshop is not used to develop Mac applications.
If a person is savvy enough to know that an app written in Flash is going to suck, they don't have to us it. Right?
But if a person is not savvy enough to know that, who are they going to blame for the poor performance? They are going to think their iWhatever sucks and has poor battery life, or is slow and unresponsive. They might even call Apple's tech support, or return their device because of it. They certainly aren't going to think it's Adobe's fault. How many typical users even know what Flash is?
The real debate is how apple changed the developer EULA to effectively deny any possibility of a flash developed app running.
No, there are two parallel debates going on. One is over the lack of the Flash plug-in for web browsers on the iThings. The other is about exporting Flash apps to native iPhone apps.
Unfortunately, due to the abysmal state of the tech press, and the general ignorance of its readers and commenters, these two arguments are often confused and you end up with people arguing about different things at the same time. Look at the linked article, for example. It is actually about the Flash player/plug-in, not Flash as an iPhone OS authoring tool. Yet you change the topic to it being about the authoring tool aspect.
This is a cleaver
That's not a cleaver, this is a Cleaver.
Against the pound, the dollar is up -- well above where it was in 2006 for instance.
That doesn't seem like much of an achievement, considering how abysmally the dollar was performing in 2006.
you guys still seem to get most things cheaper.
Yes, but if you spent your pounds over here, they would be worth a lot more. And let's not get into things like the cost of health care and the impact of the "financial crisis."
Seriously? You took my comment as a sincere opinion on the price of software, rather than a joke about the devaluation of the US dollar?
They want more efficient games. With “efficient” meaning: More fun for less time. Or: If they are shorter and don’t require as much getting into, they should just as much be more intense.
Simplicity vs. Complexity is kind of missing the point, and I think "efficiency" might be a little off the mark too.
My biggest problem with modern games is that the type of complexity that they introduce doesn't make any sense. One way is that they add some sort of "puzzle" or something to solve. But this puzzle isn't solvable by logic or intelligence, it's just something completely random. This is why game walkthroughs are so popular. Some of the predicaments are just so obtuse and weird.
The other way is that they introduce complexity to the controls. This is particularly common in console games, but not unknown in the PC gaming world, either. I want to be immersed in the game, I don't want to spend the time trying to adapt to whatever weird control scheme or combo of button presses the interface requires.
I got Oblivion on PS3 (including the expansion pack) for £12.
So, only about, US$350 then?
Or how about the Apple II series? Variants of it were sold from 1977 to 1993. That's right, 16 years spanning the decades of the 1970s to the 1990s, with few changes in basic specs. It even made more money for Apple than the Macintosh for years after the Mac's introduction.
Mod parent insightful. Where are my mod points when I *need* them?
Maybe you should have paid for mod-point insurance before you got yourself into this mess?
If an ecosystem is "delicate" who is to say it should continue to exist?
If your puny human body is so delicate that it can't withstand 37 point-blank shotgun blasts, who is to say that it should continue to exist?
because without your demands for their product, BP would not be in the ocean drilling.
That doesn't seem correct. I very much doubt that a single anonymous coward posting on slashdot is responsible for the entire world's oil demand. Even if this particular Anonymous Coward didn't use a single oil-based product, I think millions of other people would still want it.
This would appear to be the associated print ad. [vector-graphic.info]
I'm impressed how they refer to the "rigid disk" system. A couple of decades after the old "floppy" and "hard" disk jokes, they manage to bring fresh humor to the double-entendre.
IMO you shouldn't replace the MS markedroids, they do a great job at convincing their customers. If anything, replace the users with people not stupid enough to fall for such moronic ads over and over again.
I very much doubt it's the ads that sell Microsoft products. Has anyone in history ever bought a Microsoft product due to an ad? Sure, plenty of companies buy due to business-to-business marketing (i.e salespeople), but that's not really the same thing as mass-market advertising.
Also, tech moved so fast that it made less sense to invest.
That's absolutely backwards. Tech moved pretty slowly in the 1980s, a machine made in 1984 wouldn't be that different to one made in 1989. The 1990s had a much more rapid pace of acceleration. Things have slowed down a bit in the 2000s, but by far the most rapid advances were from around 1995 - 2001.
I suppose that depends on which video cards [newegg.com] and SSDs [newegg.com] you use.
The problem with that SSD is that it is slow. One of the main benefits of SSDs is performance. If the SSD you buy doesn't give a marked increase in speed over a hard drive, then why pay 30x as much per GB for?