The real reason is the last one he gives: stuff made through Flash is made to the lowest common denominator between mobile platforms. That's why people want to use Flash to write things: multiple platforms. They'll have to wait for Flash to support newNeatFeatureX before they can use it, and Steve doesn't want that.
His real reason is also his weakest point, and the one that sours it for me. It impacts not only Flash but other quality third party solutions, which tells me that he is consciously trying to restrict cross-platform development (or at least, apps being migrated from iPhone elsewhere) so that the platform can remain exclusive. In practice he makes life more difficult for developers (if the TOS is strictly applied) who have to reinvent the wheel for certain solutions. And, ultimately, hurts customers who may not get their apps easily ported to the iPhone.
His so-called logic does not hold water... Flash is just a great and convenient scapegoat, and I even agree with some of the reasons prior. But his last point is embarrasingly lame and transparent
Good point... but I think incomplete. If Apple were only about protecting the user experience from a technical perspective - then, fine. But this is not only regarding technical matters, but also content. If you are providing a channel to sell content then you can only go so far in restricting it, and you better be consistent about it. The removal of so called adult content recently has been an embarrassment. Why is Sports Illustrated and Playboy still out there while smaller apps with similar content got booted? I do think Apple is stepping over a line of credibility. True - the licence agreement allows Apple to do what they want, and developers agree to abide to it at their own risk. The point is it is frustrating when the risk is so much higher due to the arbitrariness of the Apple criteria process. Apple can only pull of this stunt now because it is in a better competitive position, but the issue I see here is that it will not endear them to their customer base, i.e. the developers. After all, the developers are the ones who provide the possibility of revenue generation by taking the risk of developing for the Apple store.
Actually, this is what the DAs are all about. What you see is that the incredibly stupid have already removed themselves from the gene pool. So these are really only astoundingly stupid deaths. You can plot these on a graph, probably, with the degree of stupidity on the y axis, and time on the x-axis. It will take more time for events to be logged as the stupidity of the participants necessarily decreases. The more stupid you are, the more quickly you act. The lameness of these new deaths is an expected result, if you ask me.
Re:Stephenson's later stuff
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 1
You have a point... but really, it should begin with him. I understand that the editor is there to guide / advise / coerce or downright force writers (theoretically) for their own benefit. But NS should be aware that his books are starting to be a chore to get through. If that is his intention, or if he is no listening to the editor - fine. Then we just have to come to terms that we are not his target audience, wish him luck, and move on.
Self-Indulgent... that's a pretty good description of his latter books. He really needs to think about filtering his mind-to-"written word" interface somewhat. Haven't read it yet. Also dropped the Baroque Cycle mid way.
To me the fact that the congress does nothing to move towards impeachment is pretty symbolic of the worst effect of Dubya's presidency: He has systematically eroded all institutions... There 3 branches of government are more suspect than ever. The executive is a joke (I wish it was funny), the judicial is highly suspect after Gonzo's hand in it, and the legislative is all but inexistent as a "checks and balance" mechanism. The constitution has just become a piece of paper to higher government.
Since GW, every action by the US is considered highly suspect. Were as in past history there was usually *some* moral ground the US could stand on to justify action (eg. Nazis in WWII, Communism in Korea and Vietnam, the first Gulf War), all US policy for the last 7 years has been based on lies and an alarming lack of anything resembling common sense, with an inbred stupidity and lack of understanding of world culture and forces enough to create a crushing snowball in the desert (I'm feeling poetic...). Astonishingly, many either believed or followed for personal / national gain. The result is an embarrassment. How can the US possibly be trusted as a world leader now?
Also, the American people (and the media) never questioned obvious fallacies throughout the current term such as: Iraq has WMD, Iraq was behind 9/11, fight them there so we don't fight them here, we are safer. Nobody questions why Osama was allowed to escape by blatantly ignoring Afghanistan in comparison to Iraq.
The Democrats have also shown a sorrowful lack of spine. Anyone who bothered to think about the issues at the time could conclude that George was a crazed, idiotic, lunatic (or worse, a cold, calculating, ruthless opportunist). But they all decided to hedge their bets... and we all lost.
I think impeachment is vital to reclaim some credibility. If not now... then I hope that the Dems recover some of their lost courage and during the next term begin the process. McCain sure as hell won't do anything if he wins. For all his progressive stance, I gather he is very shortsighted still if rehtoric is anything to judge by.
So... impeachment is vital. It will allow the legislative and judicial branches to flex some long unused muscle, and allow the American people to learn the truth for once and for. The greatest benefit from learning the truth? We may just learn something... at least we'll have a better notion of what to avoid.
For some reason, I never really took to the Media Center. So, a couple of years ago I plowed down some cash and bought SageTV on an HTPC built from a previous machine (including a component-like HTPC case). Absolutely no complaints, and I love that it includes interfaces to YouTube and Google Videos. One of the reasons I went for SageTV for Windows is that I didn't have to bother with Linux. Just set up, configure (not that hard at all), and rock 'n' roll The point here... there are alternatives to media software in Windows.
Perception is everything... and right now I feel that the perception in the market regarding Linux is that it is a hassle. Linux is a marketer's nightmare of distributions, flavours, features, and incompatibilites.
Do we use Gnome or KDE? Will a program under Gnome work if I switch to KDE?
Will all my hardware work under Linux? (Last time I tried a year ago, I could not get Kubuntu to work with network PCMCIA cards, both RJ-45 and wireless). The fact that I even have to hassle and research how to do this puts people off.
Can you play games on Linux? Not good ones (this isn't perception, unfortunately. This is fact).
Office: The perception (I have heard this) is that office tools will always be behind Microsoft Office - always playing catch-up. Its like Google office tools - they are very nice, but many still don't really trust them. Personally, I don't think so - both sets of tools are very useable. But the fact that this is even a question in some peoples' minds will put them off. And there isn't a concerted effort to correct people.
There are many others, but mostly I put it down to (lack of) marketing and organization. When a newbie thinks of imaging software and you compare the terms "Photoshop" to "GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program" - which do you think he'll immediately identify first with? And when he/she starts looking at the mish-mash of unknown or unheard-of applications, many of them with unclear installation instructions (it is free software, after all), do you not think that a sour feeling will start creeping at the back of his mind. Look at the list of applications when you install a distro. Some of those names do not inspire confidence. A user will look at "Konqueror" and scratch his head. Some things are just plain unintuitive.
I like Linux for what it represents. But there is a learning curve for any normal, untutored user (99% of the population) who has to make the switch, and the experience starts to loose its shine among the myriad of unclear choices and technical considerations that have to be made.
I agree. I'm also a bit frustrated with the amount of answers which amount to "..its crap... bad design...", etc., etc.
As a BoA customer, I for one am glad that the measure is there. Sure, it may not protect 100% of the customers. Sure, the basic premise and design may be a security issue. But as someone mentioned, even the basic user/password premise is flawed.
As a knowledgeable user (and by this I mean that I know that the measure is there, not that I'm a computer expert), I make sure that the SiteKey is correct.
Maybe the interface could be better, but I choose not to complain that the extra security measure is not there, nor do I mind waiting 10 more seconds in order to protect vital information such as personal accounts.
Graphical limits: Hmmm... don't think you thought that comment through. You need a God-card to run this game properly, and it still stutters (and I don't put it all down to a bad engine, just an advanced one).
There are a few things that consoles can't handle. Personally, I think the mouse and keyboard are superior interfaces for FPS games. The mouse is inherently better as a gaming device, and the keyboard can handle a bigger range of immediate input (Want a BFG... click 0).
Also (and leaving the FPS theatre for a sec.), consoles cannot (yet) handle other types og games like RTS. The only reason consoles are preferred by many is because they are cheaper (damn good reason), but the console experience has never surpassed the PC IMHO. When I can interact with a console as I can with PC games, I'll take the console more seriously as a games platform.
On the other hand, I'll be the first to admit that getting a PC properly configured for a games enthusiast requires tech knowledge and is way more expensive.
But as far as experience goes... I'll stick with the PC for a while longer.
I guess that all I'm saying in this long-winded fashion is that if you're anti-something, you need to give good justification for your views... and I haven't seen many "consolites" examine the virtues of the PC.
Slashdot Mirror
The real reason is the last one he gives: stuff made through Flash is made to the lowest common denominator between mobile platforms. That's why people want to use Flash to write things: multiple platforms. They'll have to wait for Flash to support newNeatFeatureX before they can use it, and Steve doesn't want that.
His real reason is also his weakest point, and the one that sours it for me. It impacts not only Flash but other quality third party solutions, which tells me that he is consciously trying to restrict cross-platform development (or at least, apps being migrated from iPhone elsewhere) so that the platform can remain exclusive. In practice he makes life more difficult for developers (if the TOS is strictly applied) who have to reinvent the wheel for certain solutions. And, ultimately, hurts customers who may not get their apps easily ported to the iPhone.
His so-called logic does not hold water... Flash is just a great and convenient scapegoat, and I even agree with some of the reasons prior. But his last point is embarrasingly lame and transparent
Good point... but I think incomplete. If Apple were only about protecting the user experience from a technical perspective - then, fine. But this is not only regarding technical matters, but also content. If you are providing a channel to sell content then you can only go so far in restricting it, and you better be consistent about it. The removal of so called adult content recently has been an embarrassment. Why is Sports Illustrated and Playboy still out there while smaller apps with similar content got booted? I do think Apple is stepping over a line of credibility. True - the licence agreement allows Apple to do what they want, and developers agree to abide to it at their own risk. The point is it is frustrating when the risk is so much higher due to the arbitrariness of the Apple criteria process. Apple can only pull of this stunt now because it is in a better competitive position, but the issue I see here is that it will not endear them to their customer base, i.e. the developers. After all, the developers are the ones who provide the possibility of revenue generation by taking the risk of developing for the Apple store.
Actually, this is what the DAs are all about. What you see is that the incredibly stupid have already removed themselves from the gene pool. So these are really only astoundingly stupid deaths. You can plot these on a graph, probably, with the degree of stupidity on the y axis, and time on the x-axis. It will take more time for events to be logged as the stupidity of the participants necessarily decreases. The more stupid you are, the more quickly you act. The lameness of these new deaths is an expected result, if you ask me.
You have a point... but really, it should begin with him. I understand that the editor is there to guide / advise / coerce or downright force writers (theoretically) for their own benefit. But NS should be aware that his books are starting to be a chore to get through. If that is his intention, or if he is no listening to the editor - fine. Then we just have to come to terms that we are not his target audience, wish him luck, and move on.
Self-Indulgent... that's a pretty good description of his latter books. He really needs to think about filtering his mind-to-"written word" interface somewhat. Haven't read it yet. Also dropped the Baroque Cycle mid way.
Oops!
Since GW, every action by the US is considered highly suspect. Were as in past history there was usually *some* moral ground the US could stand on to justify action (eg. Nazis in WWII, Communism in Korea and Vietnam, the first Gulf War), all US policy for the last 7 years has been based on lies and an alarming lack of anything resembling common sense, with an inbred stupidity and lack of understanding of world culture and forces enough to create a crushing snowball in the desert (I'm feeling poetic...). Astonishingly, many either believed or followed for personal / national gain. The result is an embarrassment. How can the US possibly be trusted as a world leader now?
Also, the American people (and the media) never questioned obvious fallacies throughout the current term such as: Iraq has WMD, Iraq was behind 9/11, fight them there so we don't fight them here, we are safer. Nobody questions why Osama was allowed to escape by blatantly ignoring Afghanistan in comparison to Iraq.
The Democrats have also shown a sorrowful lack of spine. Anyone who bothered to think about the issues at the time could conclude that George was a crazed, idiotic, lunatic (or worse, a cold, calculating, ruthless opportunist). But they all decided to hedge their bets... and we all lost. I think impeachment is vital to reclaim some credibility. If not now... then I hope that the Dems recover some of their lost courage and during the next term begin the process. McCain sure as hell won't do anything if he wins. For all his progressive stance, I gather he is very shortsighted still if rehtoric is anything to judge by.
So... impeachment is vital. It will allow the legislative and judicial branches to flex some long unused muscle, and allow the American people to learn the truth for once and for. The greatest benefit from learning the truth? We may just learn something... at least we'll have a better notion of what to avoid.
For some reason, I never really took to the Media Center. So, a couple of years ago I plowed down some cash and bought SageTV on an HTPC built from a previous machine (including a component-like HTPC case).
Absolutely no complaints, and I love that it includes interfaces to YouTube and Google Videos.
One of the reasons I went for SageTV for Windows is that I didn't have to bother with Linux. Just set up, configure (not that hard at all), and rock 'n' roll
The point here... there are alternatives to media software in Windows.
Do we use Gnome or KDE? Will a program under Gnome work if I switch to KDE?
Will all my hardware work under Linux? (Last time I tried a year ago, I could not get Kubuntu to work with network PCMCIA cards, both RJ-45 and wireless). The fact that I even have to hassle and research how to do this puts people off.
Can you play games on Linux? Not good ones (this isn't perception, unfortunately. This is fact).
Office: The perception (I have heard this) is that office tools will always be behind Microsoft Office - always playing catch-up. Its like Google office tools - they are very nice, but many still don't really trust them. Personally, I don't think so - both sets of tools are very useable. But the fact that this is even a question in some peoples' minds will put them off. And there isn't a concerted effort to correct people.
There are many others, but mostly I put it down to (lack of) marketing and organization. When a newbie thinks of imaging software and you compare the terms "Photoshop" to "GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program" - which do you think he'll immediately identify first with? And when he/she starts looking at the mish-mash of unknown or unheard-of applications, many of them with unclear installation instructions (it is free software, after all), do you not think that a sour feeling will start creeping at the back of his mind. Look at the list of applications when you install a distro. Some of those names do not inspire confidence. A user will look at "Konqueror" and scratch his head. Some things are just plain unintuitive.
I like Linux for what it represents. But there is a learning curve for any normal, untutored user (99% of the population) who has to make the switch, and the experience starts to loose its shine among the myriad of unclear choices and technical considerations that have to be made.
"Work with me people. All I want is sharks with frickin' lasers attached to their heads!!"
As a BoA customer, I for one am glad that the measure is there. Sure, it may not protect 100% of the customers. Sure, the basic premise and design may be a security issue. But as someone mentioned, even the basic user/password premise is flawed.
As a knowledgeable user (and by this I mean that I know that the measure is there, not that I'm a computer expert), I make sure that the SiteKey is correct.
Maybe the interface could be better, but I choose not to complain that the extra security measure is not there, nor do I mind waiting 10 more seconds in order to protect vital information such as personal accounts.
Graphical limits: Hmmm... don't think you thought that comment through. You need a God-card to run this game properly, and it still stutters (and I don't put it all down to a bad engine, just an advanced one).
There are a few things that consoles can't handle. Personally, I think the mouse and keyboard are superior interfaces for FPS games. The mouse is inherently better as a gaming device, and the keyboard can handle a bigger range of immediate input (Want a BFG... click 0).
Also (and leaving the FPS theatre for a sec.), consoles cannot (yet) handle other types og games like RTS. The only reason consoles are preferred by many is because they are cheaper (damn good reason), but the console experience has never surpassed the PC IMHO. When I can interact with a console as I can with PC games, I'll take the console more seriously as a games platform.
On the other hand, I'll be the first to admit that getting a PC properly configured for a games enthusiast requires tech knowledge and is way more expensive.
But as far as experience goes... I'll stick with the PC for a while longer.
I guess that all I'm saying in this long-winded fashion is that if you're anti-something, you need to give good justification for your views... and I haven't seen many "consolites" examine the virtues of the PC.