The serverside part of creating web applications is actually the easy part. It is indeed as you say: just pick a platform and a framework and use that. In most cases you have full control over the server side part of your web application, so you create it just the way you like it. The hard part is creating a good looking and well functioning interface for your clients using HTML, CSS and Javascript which will deliver (somewhat) the same experience, whatever the clients software, hardware or screen size may be. It's hard exactly because you don't know what the client will be using to access your application, as you have no control over this whatsoever.
However, it is interesting to find out that these features are supported on both the android and iPhone, I think I will test the Android out first before deploying on the network; since I don't need to jail-break the Android to use ssh, vnc, and rdp.
You don't need to jailbreak the iPhone as well to use those features. All you need is a RDP/VNC client. There are a few available from the App Store.
There are already Macs sold with Windows pre-installed with Boot Camp. Neither Apple nor Microsoft has a problem with this. Apple is happy as long as it's selling Macs and Microsoft is happy as long as people are using Windows.
Actually, because of the availability of Adobe products on Windows, it's not really helping the Mac that much. I think the Mac is mainly popular for video editting because of Final Cut, which is not available on Windows. It's been suggested before that Apple might be working on a Mac-only photo editting application to rival Photoshop.
Why on earth would Microsoft care what hardware people are using to run their operating system on? It's not like they have their own competing hardware platform or something.
In fact, I think Microsoft like people running Windows on a Mac a lot. Better than people not running Windows at all.
Exactly. It's completely stupid to think Steve Jobs will read such an article and rethink his position on Flash. He doesn't want it. So it won't be happening. Period. I don't understand why all the tech sites are still so busy with this subject. Want Flash on your phone? Don't buy an iPhone. It's really that simple.
My thoughts exactly. Paul Thurrott is a well-known (and quite succesful) troll. He will bash anything Apple does, he will love anything Microsoft does and he's often not even subtle about it. He even manages to like the Kin phones and claim "most reviews are positive", while in fact every major tech website hates them. When reading something from the hand of Paul Thurrott, you quickly realize RDFs aren't Apple-exclusive.
I get shortening 2000 to 2k. And I suppose 2k1 to 2k9 make some sense. But 2k10... that's exactly the amount of characters needed for 2010. What's the use of an abbreviation when it's not shorter?
They have employees on the technical committee that produces it, so...
So... if Dr. Phil is right and future behaviour can be predicted by look at past behaviour, it's not looking good. Remember Microsoft is also part of the W3C group that develops HTML.
Yeah, he does this all the time. Even when referring to HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript, he states:
So compare both, I can use Adobe flash technology and build workable results without paying Adobe a cent. I have access to all the source for the tools that make the swf files. Not so with Apple. So who is more open again?
This is a ridiculous statement and makes no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would anyone pay anything to Apple in order to create a website powered by HTML5, CSS3 & Javascript and featuring H.264 video?
There are still lots of games telling a story without being boring or tedious while playing.
But that's besides the point. You ask why games should have a completition, and an ending people would like to see. The answer is: the story that's being told in the game.
Stories are linear. They have a beginning, they have an end. Games telling a story are bound by these things. It doesn't mean every segment in the game should be linear or that games with a story shouldn't be replayable. There are quite a few non-boring, non-tedious, non-linear and replayable games out there. But they still have a beginning and an end, because of the story being told.
in that sense, Mass Effect 2 falls into that annoyance category when compared to it's predecessor. For one, it wasn't as "upgradable"/customizable as the first; shields sucked monkey testicles, and it forked too much compared to the first.
What do you mean with "it forked too much"? And I think ME2 is an excellent game and a lot of aspects are really a lot better than the first one. Sure there are things that could have been better, but as a whole, it's a lot more cinematic and less static. It's of course difficult to create a sequel to a game as awesome as ME1, but I really think they've done a good job.
That's exactly what they're doing with Half-Life. I wish they'd release an episode more often though.
Although I have absolutely no problems with games that contain 40 to 60 hours of gameplay in the single player campaign, and I'm not a hardcore gamer nor a kid.
They measure the time we play, they watch where we get stuck, and they broadcast our behavior back to the people that make the games so they can tune the experience accordingly.
That's actually a pretty good point. Here in the Netherlands, Freud's method of psychoanalysis has recently been removed from the package of government-funded health care, because there is no proof or scientific basis at all on the effectiveness of this treatment. Same goes with the Wii I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
The serverside part of creating web applications is actually the easy part. It is indeed as you say: just pick a platform and a framework and use that. In most cases you have full control over the server side part of your web application, so you create it just the way you like it. The hard part is creating a good looking and well functioning interface for your clients using HTML, CSS and Javascript which will deliver (somewhat) the same experience, whatever the clients software, hardware or screen size may be. It's hard exactly because you don't know what the client will be using to access your application, as you have no control over this whatsoever.
However, it is interesting to find out that these features are supported on both the android and iPhone, I think I will test the Android out first before deploying on the network; since I don't need to jail-break the Android to use ssh, vnc, and rdp.
You don't need to jailbreak the iPhone as well to use those features. All you need is a RDP/VNC client. There are a few available from the App Store.
So you pay a few dollars, who cares?
There are RDP and VNC clients for both iPhone and Android.
There are already Macs sold with Windows pre-installed with Boot Camp. Neither Apple nor Microsoft has a problem with this. Apple is happy as long as it's selling Macs and Microsoft is happy as long as people are using Windows.
Actually, because of the availability of Adobe products on Windows, it's not really helping the Mac that much. I think the Mac is mainly popular for video editting because of Final Cut, which is not available on Windows. It's been suggested before that Apple might be working on a Mac-only photo editting application to rival Photoshop.
Why on earth would Microsoft care what hardware people are using to run their operating system on? It's not like they have their own competing hardware platform or something.
In fact, I think Microsoft like people running Windows on a Mac a lot. Better than people not running Windows at all.
Exactly. It's completely stupid to think Steve Jobs will read such an article and rethink his position on Flash. He doesn't want it. So it won't be happening. Period. I don't understand why all the tech sites are still so busy with this subject. Want Flash on your phone? Don't buy an iPhone. It's really that simple.
So... what does this story have to do with technology?
My thoughts exactly. Paul Thurrott is a well-known (and quite succesful) troll. He will bash anything Apple does, he will love anything Microsoft does and he's often not even subtle about it. He even manages to like the Kin phones and claim "most reviews are positive", while in fact every major tech website hates them. When reading something from the hand of Paul Thurrott, you quickly realize RDFs aren't Apple-exclusive.
I get shortening 2000 to 2k. And I suppose 2k1 to 2k9 make some sense. But 2k10... that's exactly the amount of characters needed for 2010. What's the use of an abbreviation when it's not shorter?
Your eyes? What about your ears! MIDI music on a website from 2005, imagine that.
It's not the title of the book, it's the title of the CMS used. "CMS Made Simple" it's called, or CMSMS for short. Check it out for yourself.
...if you need a book?
They have employees on the technical committee that produces it, so...
So... if Dr. Phil is right and future behaviour can be predicted by look at past behaviour, it's not looking good. Remember Microsoft is also part of the W3C group that develops HTML.
Trying to write OOXML according to the spec and have it working in MS Office? Wow man, I don't envy your job.
Yeah, he does this all the time. Even when referring to HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript, he states:
So compare both, I can use Adobe flash technology and build workable results without paying Adobe a cent. I have access to all the source for the tools that make the swf files. Not so with Apple. So who is more open again?
This is a ridiculous statement and makes no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would anyone pay anything to Apple in order to create a website powered by HTML5, CSS3 & Javascript and featuring H.264 video?
Of course not.
There are still lots of games telling a story without being boring or tedious while playing.
But that's besides the point. You ask why games should have a completition, and an ending people would like to see. The answer is: the story that's being told in the game.
Stories are linear. They have a beginning, they have an end. Games telling a story are bound by these things. It doesn't mean every segment in the game should be linear or that games with a story shouldn't be replayable. There are quite a few non-boring, non-tedious, non-linear and replayable games out there. But they still have a beginning and an end, because of the story being told.
why should a game have a completion. why it should have an ending. and why the hell do we have to see them ?
Because some games tell a story.
in that sense, Mass Effect 2 falls into that annoyance category when compared to it's predecessor. For one, it wasn't as "upgradable"/customizable as the first; shields sucked monkey testicles, and it forked too much compared to the first.
What do you mean with "it forked too much"? And I think ME2 is an excellent game and a lot of aspects are really a lot better than the first one. Sure there are things that could have been better, but as a whole, it's a lot more cinematic and less static. It's of course difficult to create a sequel to a game as awesome as ME1, but I really think they've done a good job.
That's exactly what they're doing with Half-Life. I wish they'd release an episode more often though.
Although I have absolutely no problems with games that contain 40 to 60 hours of gameplay in the single player campaign, and I'm not a hardcore gamer nor a kid.
They measure the time we play, they watch where we get stuck, and they broadcast our behavior back to the people that make the games so they can tune the experience accordingly.
That's not broadcasting.
No. XKCD is funny, witty and doesn't care if it loses the mainstream audience by being overly geeky. TBBT is the exact opposite.
The medical value of the Wii --- unproven.
That's actually a pretty good point. Here in the Netherlands, Freud's method of psychoanalysis has recently been removed from the package of government-funded health care, because there is no proof or scientific basis at all on the effectiveness of this treatment. Same goes with the Wii I suppose.