No. The first think I'd do if I had a million dollars, . . .
is two chicks at the same time, man. That's what I'd do. And I bet, if I had a million dollars, I could probably hook that up. 'Cause chicks dig a dude with money.;-)
Well, you got it. That'll be a million dollars, thank ye!
what kind of financial institution couldn't afford to spend 50 grand to register a domain name? or even 50 grand a year to keep it? If it was me I'd make it 500 grand a year: this way only reputable institutions would sign up for this (institutions that realize that this is peanuts compared to the damage phishing can cause, not to mention that half a million these days seems to be pocket change compared to some banks' advertising budgets)
500 grand? Hell, make it 5 billion/year. Apparently since banks hold money, people think this is their money to spend on bullshit. Or maybe reputable banks are reputable because they invest their money wisely, and not because they bought something that normally costs $10 for $500000. Tough call.
I bet the first thing you'll do if you had a million dollars, would be sign up for a millionaires email, wouldn't you, smart spender?
Check their features as well. They offer global access. Amazing.
Musicians rely heavily on their tools (Pro Tools, pun not intended) and software intstruments (VST/VSTi, which are normally released for OSX and Windows only) to do what they do.
Now, music is an art, you can do music with a garbage can and chicken bone if you want. Thus Linux could be used for that, but no serious musician would inconvenience himself and forget about the plathora of processing plugins, instruments, effects, sequencers, remixers, audio editors on Windows/OSX to go for Linux.
For the most part, musicians use computers to make music, not follow misguided attempts to prove Linux best in everything.
Most recording studios these days use, at the very least, 24bit audio at between 96-196+ khz. While I agree with you that most people won't hear a difference, audiophiles will hear a difference. My mother can't tell the difference between a hissy cassette tape and a CD, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Recording studios don't do 24bit 196kHz because they "hear a difference". They do it for the same purpose that Photoshop (for ex.) supports 48-bit images: when you're going to edit this material (filter, change dynamics, amplify, process, speed up/down, remix etc etc), you need extra precision, since from all the twisting and processing, deffects on a 44khz/16-bit piece start to show much sooner than with 24-bit 196kHz.
For studios, the flexibility to tweak the material endlessly without perceptible loss is important, since recording in a proper isolated room with all the proper technicians, musicians, singers, equipment, isn't cheap (cheaper than before, but not cheap).
Audophiles are in the majority losers who can be convinced that 900kHz sounds much better than 800kHz, even if you actually played the same thing to them, but with two different labels. Quality at those levels is subjective, and people's senses are unwillingly manipulated by what they're told.
It's basically the same reason why some people admire paintings like this one. they don't all pretend they understand/like it.
Some are convinced they see something incredible, maybe the author is also convinced he thought of something incredible, thing is, I can put my 5 year old kid and it'll draw the same in 2 minutes and they won't be able to tell the difference and admire just the same.
Jobs is the single largest shareholder in Disney, and he goes on and on about DRM-free music, but doesn't push for Disney to release its movies on unprotcted DVDs, HD-DVDs, and/or BRs, nor DRM-free online web releases. When asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, "Um, well, you see, video is different than audio...". Bull. Jobs, stop grandstanding about music and start releasing your own company's movies in unprotected fashion. THEN you'll have some credibility on this issue.
There's a big difference between having majority (over 50%) and being the single largest shareholder. He may talk about DRM-free as much as he wants. When the votes are counted, the other shareholders still have their ability to overrule it if they deem it unwise.
Plus I doubt even Jobs wants to suddenly drop all the DRM and go for it. It's a risk, what IF it turns out this leads to major drop in profits? Those things happen gradually and in separate stages, they don't happen overnight.
Remarkable. I bet no one has ever thought of that before [unisa.edu.au]. This is why Microsoft is so successful.
Thing is, from thinking about it to doing there's a lot of effort involved. I'm not sure why as Windows user, I should feel warm that someone did that on X-Server.
Well, no, that's what the bussiness people want everyone to think so they seem manly and big penisy, especially the female executives.
You use military leadership to kill people and break things. You use business leadership to inspire and build.
Inspiring and building isn't what business is about. It's about making money by selling products and services, or speculation, or anything.
As such, no one is awarding you for how inspiring your leadership is, but what's the bottom line.
The fact that things get build and developed is merely a side effect, since incidentally people will pay/watch certain things, so businesses adapt to that.
In modern business, surviving isn't just about creating marvelous things, but also knowing how to destroy the competition, fairly or not, knowing when to kill some of your products, so another can bring larger profit, knowing that you gotta fire Joe who has four kids and a wife with no job, since he's incompetent and interferes with the work of the whole team.
Business is cruel, man. "Anything goes", even stuff outside the law, which some corporations can afford (such as MS, but of course, also their own competitors).
The one application that struck me is the holographic implications. If you can get light to move to a precise spot in mid-air through an invisible tunnel, you can make objects appear anywhere. No smoke or mirrors required.
A laser beam is already invisible since it travels in a given direction. There's no light-saber beam line, like in the movies (as you probably know).
The problem with holograms is, how do you scatter that beam at any given point (thus the smoke or vapour or whatever), so it becomes a visible light point. And thus, thus technology doesn't help holograms at all.
Plus to create a workable resolution images (say 800 voxels = 800^3) that's 512 million tunnels, recreated/readjusted from 20 to 60 times a second. Or one really fast moving tunnel covering around 10 billion locations per second.
Since the solution involves metal rings building the tunnel.. how the heck do you imagine this in a hologram in midair;)?
Some people use this as a way to gauge the competency of the presenter.
Or he could just be an asshole.
Bill Gates is an asshole. Steve Jobs is also an asshole. Linus Torvalds is an asshole.
See a pattern there? If you gotta be an asshole to get succeed, and you're a very smart asshole who knows exactly what he's doing, then by all means, do it.
Doing business is a war, no more or no less. If you miss a trend, or fail to predict the market reaction or whatever, your business may go down faster than you could process it. A war requires military precision. Would you rather your leader be an asshole so you're always sharp and prepared for any opportunity, or be dead (i.e. fired, out of job, bankrupt).
Researchers are developing software that splits a computer screen in two halves, each side with its own Vista CD-Key, desktop, Office 2007 license, cursor and keyboard. And don't even think about copying music from one side of the screen to the other, you pirate!
give them credit where credit is due. The same research facility came up with another similar technology where you can attach multiple (unlimited) mice to a single PC and all operate independently. This means that you can put many kids on a single computer, and they can all play and learn, basically for free, as all the costs you have for adding one more child to the PC, is adding one more (USB) mouse. Neat, isn't it.
Now this new technology seems to be targeted at education again, and if you can have each OS copy on a separate monitor (most cards today handle 2 monitors at least by standard), it's a really really good thing to have.
Microsoft Research really puts out cool things, and this just a little bit of what they've done to advance interfaces, OS design, security etc. Not all of this technology goes directly in the next version of Office/Windows, but may be licensed to third parties for implementation, or be used in specific cases, such as the multi-mouse / split-screen technology.
The raw speed of PHP isn't very relevant. It's a language for low to mid-range web apps that is flexible enough to do high-end web apps as well. If your PHP app is slow it's probably due to poor programming or poor database indexing or design. PHP usually takes request data, gathers a database result, shuffles around some data, then displays an HTML page. It's easily fast enough for its purpose.
What you're saying: PHP is only good for gluing your DB to your HTML, straight procedural code. But that was true in the distant (in IT terms) past of the web, before PHP programmers got educated enough to demand applications with proper architecture and provisions, manageable and stable code, versus the spaghetti code we see so often in old open source PHP projects.
Plus, go teach Zend about your view on their language. Their framework has terrible speed on their own language. Stupid Zend, doing stupid things.
You can't put randomly a line where something becomes "too complex for PHP" and where it's not. If PHP struggles for tasks fast enough for other comparable, means the problem isn't in the programmers. In the end PHP loses, by having an "elite" of folks who would rather stubbornly defend PHP's faults than do something about them.
In PHP's defense, how does performance compare once some sort of accelerator is involved? Are those fancy output caching engines or do they actually precompile/cache the code or something like that?
When you run a PHP file, there are two stages of execution: [build a parse tree from the source and output bytecodes] [interpret the bytecodes]
The accelerators cache the bytecodes, so next time they are loaded (usually from RAM) and interpreted directly.
However compare with what you get with the CLR by default: [a compiler builds the parse tree and outputs bytecodes] [opcodes are compiled to machine code] [natively run machine code linked to a runtime library]
You basically never ever repeat the first step more than once there, and in some cases the second. And running as native code is hella faster. A big problem with PHP is it abuses string hashes and fails to do early binding where appropriate (indexed serial arrays, class objects and methods etc.).
So everything you reference in PHP requires a bunch of hash lookups. It's terrible.
Well they did find blood in his vehicle and house. From the article:
"Though no body has been found, Reiser was arrested Oct. 10 after the Oakland Police Department found small drops of blood in his house and in his Honda CRX"
You know, I watch those series on discovery about people communicate with ghosts of the dead and find the body and killer? It's all real stories.
I want to see someone claim that the "month of bugs" projects harms the products involved. From what we saw with Apple and PHP, they finally closed holes gaping for many previous versions.
Now if only could PHP also fix their performance and inconsistencies..
When Microsoft announced that Silverlight was going to be a cross-platform technology that only ran on Windows and Apple, I was extremely frustrated. I can understand why, strategically, Microsoft has chosen not to implement a Silverlight implementation on Linux
Strategy is nothing to do with it. Porting Silverlight to Linux isn't trivial, and this is their first release. If there was enough demand, they'd port it to Linux too. With the Mono version though, I doubt it.
Silverlight is not just a reimplementation of Flash. Coding in.NET is a pleasure, and a can gaurantee you that coding for the Silverlight platform is going to be infinitely more organized and structured than coding for Flash. Website developers are going to flock to this new technology.
Unlike you I've played extensively with Silverlight, and I'm a Flash developer, and let me tell you: website developers are NOT going to flock to this technology.
Microsoft promises a lot with Silverlight, but Flash was there few years ago. Expression Blend is immature as a tool for interactive content, the.NET subset in Silverlight is relatively limited.
People claim Silverlight is superior to Flash as it offers native OS controls and 3D and what not. Silverlight offers non of those. Those are just int the full version of.NET. In silverlight, you have no controls at all right now.
Flash does have controls and a full framework around it in Flex, and it's open source. Also I'd like you to support your statements about how much "pleasure" it is to program in Flash or.NET. Flash programming has changed drastically with the introduction of the new AVM v.2, AS3 and Flex 2.
Currently the only thing Silverlight has better than Flash, is a better video codec, which is definitely something Flash can correct, before Silverlight get's spread.
From the "website developers that will flock on to it", right now I notice just excitement among *NET* programmers, whoa re happy they can use their existing skills on the web. This is only natural, but it doesn't mean all those Illustrator/Photoshop/Flash/Flex developers will disappear overnight. The battle has only began, and Silverlight has a lot of catching up to do.
Utter rubbish. Producing more units allows you to spread the fixed costs, but the cost can't go below the marginal cost, which is more or less the stuff mentioned by the parent (plus a battery).
Can a governmental body understand this? How does a government institution spend money:
1. Spend three times more than needed. 2. Promise ten times and deliver nothing.
Not really; plenty of games struggle even on fairly beefy cards if you want to run them at native resolution on a decent TFT with details turned way up.
So what do you do. You pay an insane price for a card that's 10% faster (and will cost twice less in few months)?
How about not running with the details way up, how's that for a solution?
I also struggle without a Ferrari with all extras, but it doesn't mean I indebt myself and go buy, since I struggle.
Today, you often need to go back to looking at the entire page. Why? Because the cutting edge developments require that the page be looked at as a complete memory model. If you try to take the HTML Component approach, programmer 1 may stomp all over programmer 2's Javascript or document ids by accident. Thus it suddenly makes sense to unify those pieces into libraries akin to more traditional programming methods.
I'm not sure how this negates the framework model. It's exactly a framework that could provide you always with a unique id, or avoid the need of an id.
I'm not familiar with Portlets and couldn't understand your example.
Am I the only one who usually finds frameworks to be pointless for serious web development?
You and your soul-buddies who don't understand that by the time they "have it just right", what you just wrote is already outdated and no one cares about it.
The most crucial two things to succeed today, are:
1. having something to offer that people need, and they don't get;
2. do it FAST, since there are 1000 other geniuses like you who thought of the same thing, and will fill the niche before you manage to write and offer your solution.
Frameworks offer you the second, you need to think of the first yourself. Once you have customers/visitors and then the framework you used starts showing weaknesses (mind you, a "weakness" isn't opening your View Source and being overly anal about how the code *looks*), you'll have the time and resources to improve your service/site/solution/product/whatever.
Hey, if a development framework that won't trap end users and developers is going to "kill it's most profitable product" then there is something fundementally wrong with that product. What you're basically telling us is that Microsoft can't survive on an open playing field. Take away their legacy apps and vendor lock and they die quick and sudden.
I didn't say they die quick and sudden. That would require something quite catastrophic to happen. But the trend is important. All parts of the equation are important.
Microsoft does not believe that legacy will support their market share forever, and this is why they imitate OSX with the fancy interface, and try to buff up their security, and enterprise features. In fact some of this they did by sacrificing some compatibility with their legacy software.
But this just proves once more that it's not about one single thing, or one another thing: it's about the balance of everything that Windows should have, to stay dominant. There's no reason Microsoft to destabilize itself by letting competition make half the apps out there platform independent.
You pointed it out perfectly. When Microsoft makes a developer product it is a conflict of interest to make that product portable. Almost all other developer oriented companies don't have this conflict of interest. So as a developer, it is best to avoid MS development products.
You're right about the conflict of interests, but it's not a good reason to avoid MS developer products. The developer products of Microsoft are great for what they do (software/server/clients for Windows).
You see, Microsoft's position is not unique here. Do you think Adobe's commitment to cross-platform solutions is based on their good-natured philosophy about software technology?
Adobe knows that if produces Windows-only technology, Microsoft will beat it anytime, as Microsoft makes Windows, and Microsoft makes the best dev tools for Windows out there. No one argues that.
So Adobe should offer something different, or die. It decided to offer something different, the only thing Microsoft can't offer: true commitment to crossplatform write-once-deploy-anywhere solutions and developer tools. It's their survival technique.
At one point Adobe started dropping their Mac based products or producing/sustaining new Windows-only products. (Premiere, PageMaker, Audition). But back then other forces shifted their decisions: Windows has much greater market share, they sell more for Windows, and writing for Mac is very expensive, and has low return. They were just a software company providing graphics/document tools.
They're no longer just that, so they now have their newfound reason to stick to platform neutrality.
As always, the customers win from all this. I today can deploy Flash solutions accross Linux/Windows/OSX/Solaris, and in an year or so, I'll have the option of deploying.NET/WPF rich clients on Windows, with rich 3D, video and layout capabilities, and taking a subset of that and deploying it on OSX/Windows with Silverlight.
Both of those platforms come with RAD tools, if Silverlight turns ugly on OSX and I need the OSX support, I'll port to Flash/SVG/HTML/whatever-has-traction-at-the-moment and say Silverlight bye bye. It's as simple as that.
I've found it weird that people are ready to start protests, petitions and what not, when the matter is about the DRM used in their DVD or something entertainment-related like this.
But oddly enough noone does that when a kid is being thrown out of school and labeled a terrorist for creating a game level, a 17 year old kid is marked as a pedophile for making out with a 15 year old girlfriend.
Now of course, we're "angry" and all that. But we do nothing. The HDMI requirement on your console is somehow more important.
Slashdot Mirror
No. The first think I'd do if I had a million dollars, . . .
;-)
is two chicks at the same time, man. That's what I'd do. And I bet, if I had a million dollars, I could probably hook that up. 'Cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Well, you got it. That'll be a million dollars, thank ye!
what kind of financial institution couldn't afford to spend 50 grand to register a domain name? or even 50 grand a year to keep it? If it was me I'd make it 500 grand a year: this way only reputable institutions would sign up for this (institutions that realize that this is peanuts compared to the damage phishing can cause, not to mention that half a million these days seems to be pocket change compared to some banks' advertising budgets)
500 grand? Hell, make it 5 billion/year. Apparently since banks hold money, people think this is their money to spend on bullshit. Or maybe reputable banks are reputable because they invest their money wisely, and not because they bought something that normally costs $10 for $500000. Tough call.
I bet the first thing you'll do if you had a million dollars, would be sign up for a millionaires email, wouldn't you, smart spender?
Check their features as well. They offer global access. Amazing.
Musicians rely heavily on their tools (Pro Tools, pun not intended) and software intstruments (VST/VSTi, which are normally released for OSX and Windows only) to do what they do.
Now, music is an art, you can do music with a garbage can and chicken bone if you want. Thus Linux could be used for that, but no serious musician would inconvenience himself and forget about the plathora of processing plugins, instruments, effects, sequencers, remixers, audio editors on Windows/OSX to go for Linux.
For the most part, musicians use computers to make music, not follow misguided attempts to prove Linux best in everything.
Most recording studios these days use, at the very least, 24bit audio at between 96-196+ khz. While I agree with you that most people won't hear a difference, audiophiles will hear a difference. My mother can't tell the difference between a hissy cassette tape and a CD, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Recording studios don't do 24bit 196kHz because they "hear a difference". They do it for the same purpose that Photoshop (for ex.) supports 48-bit images: when you're going to edit this material (filter, change dynamics, amplify, process, speed up/down, remix etc etc), you need extra precision, since from all the twisting and processing, deffects on a 44khz/16-bit piece start to show much sooner than with 24-bit 196kHz.
For studios, the flexibility to tweak the material endlessly without perceptible loss is important, since recording in a proper isolated room with all the proper technicians, musicians, singers, equipment, isn't cheap (cheaper than before, but not cheap).
Audophiles are in the majority losers who can be convinced that 900kHz sounds much better than 800kHz, even if you actually played the same thing to them, but with two different labels. Quality at those levels is subjective, and people's senses are unwillingly manipulated by what they're told.
It's basically the same reason why some people admire paintings like this one. they don't all pretend they understand/like it.
Some are convinced they see something incredible, maybe the author is also convinced he thought of something incredible, thing is, I can put my 5 year old kid and it'll draw the same in 2 minutes and they won't be able to tell the difference and admire just the same.
Jobs is the single largest shareholder in Disney, and he goes on and on about DRM-free music, but doesn't push for Disney to release its movies on unprotcted DVDs, HD-DVDs, and/or BRs, nor DRM-free online web releases. When asked about it, he hemmed and hawed, "Um, well, you see, video is different than audio...". Bull. Jobs, stop grandstanding about music and start releasing your own company's movies in unprotected fashion. THEN you'll have some credibility on this issue.
There's a big difference between having majority (over 50%) and being the single largest shareholder. He may talk about DRM-free as much as he wants. When the votes are counted, the other shareholders still have their ability to overrule it if they deem it unwise.
Plus I doubt even Jobs wants to suddenly drop all the DRM and go for it. It's a risk, what IF it turns out this leads to major drop in profits? Those things happen gradually and in separate stages, they don't happen overnight.
Remarkable. I bet no one has ever thought of that before [unisa.edu.au]. This is why Microsoft is so successful.
Thing is, from thinking about it to doing there's a lot of effort involved. I'm not sure why as Windows user, I should feel warm that someone did that on X-Server.
The point is it was done for Windows.
Well, no, that's what the bussiness people want everyone to think so they seem manly and big penisy, especially the female executives.
You use military leadership to kill people and break things. You use business leadership to inspire and build.
Inspiring and building isn't what business is about. It's about making money by selling products and services, or speculation, or anything.
As such, no one is awarding you for how inspiring your leadership is, but what's the bottom line.
The fact that things get build and developed is merely a side effect, since incidentally people will pay/watch certain things, so businesses adapt to that.
In modern business, surviving isn't just about creating marvelous things, but also knowing how to destroy the competition, fairly or not, knowing when to kill some of your products, so another can bring larger profit, knowing that you gotta fire Joe who has four kids and a wife with no job, since he's incompetent and interferes with the work of the whole team.
Business is cruel, man. "Anything goes", even stuff outside the law, which some corporations can afford (such as MS, but of course, also their own competitors).
The one application that struck me is the holographic implications. If you can get light to move to a precise spot in mid-air through an invisible tunnel, you can make objects appear anywhere. No smoke or mirrors required.
;)?
A laser beam is already invisible since it travels in a given direction. There's no light-saber beam line, like in the movies (as you probably know).
The problem with holograms is, how do you scatter that beam at any given point (thus the smoke or vapour or whatever), so it becomes a visible light point. And thus, thus technology doesn't help holograms at all.
Plus to create a workable resolution images (say 800 voxels = 800^3) that's 512 million tunnels, recreated/readjusted from 20 to 60 times a second. Or one really fast moving tunnel covering around 10 billion locations per second.
Since the solution involves metal rings building the tunnel.. how the heck do you imagine this in a hologram in midair
Some people use this as a way to gauge the competency of the presenter.
Or he could just be an asshole.
Bill Gates is an asshole.
Steve Jobs is also an asshole.
Linus Torvalds is an asshole.
See a pattern there? If you gotta be an asshole to get succeed, and you're a very smart asshole who knows exactly what he's doing, then by all means, do it.
Doing business is a war, no more or no less. If you miss a trend, or fail to predict the market reaction or whatever, your business may go down faster than you could process it. A war requires military precision. Would you rather your leader be an asshole so you're always sharp and prepared for any opportunity, or be dead (i.e. fired, out of job, bankrupt).
Researchers are developing software that splits a computer screen in two halves, each side with its own Vista CD-Key, desktop, Office 2007 license, cursor and keyboard. And don't even think about copying music from one side of the screen to the other, you pirate!
give them credit where credit is due. The same research facility came up with another similar technology where you can attach multiple (unlimited) mice to a single PC and all operate independently. This means that you can put many kids on a single computer, and they can all play and learn, basically for free, as all the costs you have for adding one more child to the PC, is adding one more (USB) mouse. Neat, isn't it.
Now this new technology seems to be targeted at education again, and if you can have each OS copy on a separate monitor (most cards today handle 2 monitors at least by standard), it's a really really good thing to have.
Microsoft Research really puts out cool things, and this just a little bit of what they've done to advance interfaces, OS design, security etc. Not all of this technology goes directly in the next version of Office/Windows, but may be licensed to third parties for implementation, or be used in specific cases, such as the multi-mouse / split-screen technology.
The raw speed of PHP isn't very relevant. It's a language for low to mid-range web apps that is flexible enough to do high-end web apps as well. If your PHP app is slow it's probably due to poor programming or poor database indexing or design. PHP usually takes request data, gathers a database result, shuffles around some data, then displays an HTML page. It's easily fast enough for its purpose.
What you're saying: PHP is only good for gluing your DB to your HTML, straight procedural code. But that was true in the distant (in IT terms) past of the web, before PHP programmers got educated enough to demand applications with proper architecture and provisions, manageable and stable code, versus the spaghetti code we see so often in old open source PHP projects.
Plus, go teach Zend about your view on their language. Their framework has terrible speed on their own language. Stupid Zend, doing stupid things.
You can't put randomly a line where something becomes "too complex for PHP" and where it's not. If PHP struggles for tasks fast enough for other comparable, means the problem isn't in the programmers. In the end PHP loses, by having an "elite" of folks who would rather stubbornly defend PHP's faults than do something about them.
In PHP's defense, how does performance compare once some sort of accelerator is involved? Are those fancy output caching engines or do they actually precompile/cache the code or something like that?
When you run a PHP file, there are two stages of execution:
[build a parse tree from the source and output bytecodes] [interpret the bytecodes]
The accelerators cache the bytecodes, so next time they are loaded (usually from RAM) and interpreted directly.
However compare with what you get with the CLR by default:
[a compiler builds the parse tree and outputs bytecodes] [opcodes are compiled to machine code] [natively run machine code linked to a runtime library]
You basically never ever repeat the first step more than once there, and in some cases the second. And running as native code is hella faster. A big problem with PHP is it abuses string hashes and fails to do early binding where appropriate (indexed serial arrays, class objects and methods etc.).
So everything you reference in PHP requires a bunch of hash lookups. It's terrible.
At first I thought you were trolling but from your "fix their performance" statement I realize you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Right. PHP's the fastest language out there, as proven in this test.
Well they did find blood in his vehicle and house. From the article:
"Though no body has been found, Reiser was arrested Oct. 10 after the Oakland Police Department found small drops of blood in his house and in his Honda CRX"
You know, I watch those series on discovery about people communicate with ghosts of the dead and find the body and killer? It's all real stories.
I thoroughly believe in this.
Wow, how delightfully shallow! If we found out that Newton murdered someone we should all drop newtonian physics!
I didn't know Einstein was a crime-expert.
I want to see someone claim that the "month of bugs" projects harms the products involved. From what we saw with Apple and PHP, they finally closed holes gaping for many previous versions.
Now if only could PHP also fix their performance and inconsistencies..
When Microsoft announced that Silverlight was going to be a cross-platform technology that only ran on Windows and Apple, I was extremely frustrated. I can understand why, strategically, Microsoft has chosen not to implement a Silverlight implementation on Linux
.NET is a pleasure, and a can gaurantee you that coding for the Silverlight platform is going to be infinitely more organized and structured than coding for Flash. Website developers are going to flock to this new technology.
.NET subset in Silverlight is relatively limited.
.NET. In silverlight, you have no controls at all right now.
.NET. Flash programming has changed drastically with the introduction of the new AVM v.2, AS3 and Flex 2.
Strategy is nothing to do with it. Porting Silverlight to Linux isn't trivial, and this is their first release. If there was enough demand, they'd port it to Linux too. With the Mono version though, I doubt it.
Silverlight is not just a reimplementation of Flash. Coding in
Unlike you I've played extensively with Silverlight, and I'm a Flash developer, and let me tell you: website developers are NOT going to flock to this technology.
Microsoft promises a lot with Silverlight, but Flash was there few years ago. Expression Blend is immature as a tool for interactive content, the
People claim Silverlight is superior to Flash as it offers native OS controls and 3D and what not. Silverlight offers non of those. Those are just int the full version of
Flash does have controls and a full framework around it in Flex, and it's open source. Also I'd like you to support your statements about how much "pleasure" it is to program in Flash or
Currently the only thing Silverlight has better than Flash, is a better video codec, which is definitely something Flash can correct, before Silverlight get's spread.
From the "website developers that will flock on to it", right now I notice just excitement among *NET* programmers, whoa re happy they can use their existing skills on the web. This is only natural, but it doesn't mean all those Illustrator/Photoshop/Flash/Flex developers will disappear overnight. The battle has only began, and Silverlight has a lot of catching up to do.
Utter rubbish. Producing more units allows you to spread the fixed costs, but the cost can't go below the marginal cost, which is more or less the stuff mentioned by the parent (plus a battery).
Can a governmental body understand this?
How does a government institution spend money:
1. Spend three times more than needed.
2. Promise ten times and deliver nothing.
They're doing a great job.
This seems to be another vapour ware project, whose main aim is to extract government money.
This not a vapour ware, government understand technology, Indian government - twice more!
This a photo of top notch laptop:
$10 Laptop Top Quality, Future Reality
Scientists say, just $10, just attach to monitor, take anywhere. We're smart, not paying $100.
Peace!
Not really; plenty of games struggle even on fairly beefy cards if you want to run them at native resolution on a decent TFT with details turned way up.
So what do you do. You pay an insane price for a card that's 10% faster (and will cost twice less in few months)?
How about not running with the details way up, how's that for a solution?
I also struggle without a Ferrari with all extras, but it doesn't mean I indebt myself and go buy, since I struggle.
Today, you often need to go back to looking at the entire page. Why? Because the cutting edge developments require that the page be looked at as a complete memory model. If you try to take the HTML Component approach, programmer 1 may stomp all over programmer 2's Javascript or document ids by accident. Thus it suddenly makes sense to unify those pieces into libraries akin to more traditional programming methods.
I'm not sure how this negates the framework model. It's exactly a framework that could provide you always with a unique id, or avoid the need of an id.
I'm not familiar with Portlets and couldn't understand your example.
Am I the only one who usually finds frameworks to be pointless for serious web development?
You and your soul-buddies who don't understand that by the time they "have it just right", what you just wrote is already outdated and no one cares about it.
The most crucial two things to succeed today, are:
1. having something to offer that people need, and they don't get;
2. do it FAST, since there are 1000 other geniuses like you who thought of the same thing, and will fill the niche before you manage to write and offer your solution.
Frameworks offer you the second, you need to think of the first yourself. Once you have customers/visitors and then the framework you used starts showing weaknesses (mind you, a "weakness" isn't opening your View Source and being overly anal about how the code *looks*), you'll have the time and resources to improve your service/site/solution/product/whatever.
Hey, if a development framework that won't trap end users and developers is going to "kill it's most profitable product" then there is something fundementally wrong with that product. What you're basically telling us is that Microsoft can't survive on an open playing field. Take away their legacy apps and vendor lock and they die quick and sudden.
I didn't say they die quick and sudden. That would require something quite catastrophic to happen. But the trend is important. All parts of the equation are important.
Microsoft does not believe that legacy will support their market share forever, and this is why they imitate OSX with the fancy interface, and try to buff up their security, and enterprise features. In fact some of this they did by sacrificing some compatibility with their legacy software.
But this just proves once more that it's not about one single thing, or one another thing: it's about the balance of everything that Windows should have, to stay dominant. There's no reason Microsoft to destabilize itself by letting competition make half the apps out there platform independent.
You pointed it out perfectly. When Microsoft makes a developer product it is a conflict of interest to make that product portable. Almost all other developer oriented companies don't have this conflict of interest. So as a developer, it is best to avoid MS development products.
.NET/WPF rich clients on Windows, with rich 3D, video and layout capabilities, and taking a subset of that and deploying it on OSX/Windows with Silverlight.
t and say Silverlight bye bye. It's as simple as that.
You're right about the conflict of interests, but it's not a good reason to avoid MS developer products. The developer products of Microsoft are great for what they do (software/server/clients for Windows).
You see, Microsoft's position is not unique here. Do you think Adobe's commitment to cross-platform solutions is based on their good-natured philosophy about software technology?
Adobe knows that if produces Windows-only technology, Microsoft will beat it anytime, as Microsoft makes Windows, and Microsoft makes the best dev tools for Windows out there. No one argues that.
So Adobe should offer something different, or die. It decided to offer something different, the only thing Microsoft can't offer: true commitment to crossplatform write-once-deploy-anywhere solutions and developer tools. It's their survival technique.
At one point Adobe started dropping their Mac based products or producing/sustaining new Windows-only products. (Premiere, PageMaker, Audition). But back then other forces shifted their decisions: Windows has much greater market share, they sell more for Windows, and writing for Mac is very expensive, and has low return. They were just a software company providing graphics/document tools.
They're no longer just that, so they now have their newfound reason to stick to platform neutrality.
As always, the customers win from all this. I today can deploy Flash solutions accross Linux/Windows/OSX/Solaris, and in an year or so, I'll have the option of deploying
Both of those platforms come with RAD tools, if Silverlight turns ugly on OSX and I need the OSX support, I'll port to Flash/SVG/HTML/whatever-has-traction-at-the-momen
I've found it weird that people are ready to start protests, petitions and what not, when the matter is about the DRM used in their DVD or something entertainment-related like this.
But oddly enough noone does that when a kid is being thrown out of school and labeled a terrorist for creating a game level, a 17 year old kid is marked as a pedophile for making out with a 15 year old girlfriend.
Now of course, we're "angry" and all that. But we do nothing. The HDMI requirement on your console is somehow more important.