I seem to be missing the point on the online CB

[Mad Hamish]

What you call flawed logic could very well happen.
Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.

a) That's aerodynamics rather than logic
b) from wikipedia
"It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.

Additionally, John Maynard Smith a noted naturalist with a strong background in aeronautics, has pointed out that bumblebees would not be expected to sustain flight, as they would need to generate too much power given their tiny wing area. However, in aerodynamics experiments with other insects he found that viscosity at the scale of small insects meant that even their small wings can move a very large volume of air relative to the size, and this reduces the power required to sustain flight by an order of magnitude"

 

[catsclaw227]

It's not clear to me where Microsoft is going with Silverlight. My impression, which could easily be wrong, is that they will support it or a version of it with Windows 7 Phone, "but HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple’s) iOS platform" according to the guy in charge of their server and tools business.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, I didn't read the next 6-7 pages yet, but the quote about their "strategy shift" with regards to Silverlight was taken way out of context.

Scott Guthrie, Corporate Vice President in the Microsoft Developer Division, and a serious developer himself clarified things here.

Over the last week there has been a lot of confusion/concern about Silverlight that occurred from an interview given at the PDC conference last week. A few days ago Bob Muglia (President of our Server and Tools Division) posted a blog post on the Silverlight Team blog that helped clarify what he said in the interview that caused the controversy. You can read his post here.

Three of the things that he explicitly said in the interview (and which were reported in the article - but unfortunately lost in the public reaction to it) were:

1. Silverlight is very important and strategic to Microsoft.
2. We’re working hard on the next release of Silverlight, and it will continue to be cross-browser and cross-platform, and run on Windows and Mac.
3. Silverlight is a core application development platform for Windows, and it’s the development platform for Windows Phone.

In his blog post he expanded more to discuss some of the core areas we are focusing on with Silverlight going forward:

• Client Apps (both inside and outside the browser) - with a particular emphasis on enterprise business applications
• Apps that run on Devices - Silverlight is now the client programming model for Windows Phone and Windows Embedded (which includes things like TVs)
• Media Solutions – Silverlight will continue to pioneer premium media capabilities and experiences

The "strategy shift" comment he made in the interview was intended to be about us increasing our focus on the above three areas as key scenarios where we think we can really differentiate and add a ton of value with Silverlight. These are not new areas but rather core things we’ve always focused on with Silverlight and are the primary scenarios customers use it for today. You’ll see even more focus on these areas in future Silverlight releases.

Where our strategy has shifted since we first started working on Silverlight is that the number of Internet connected devices out there in the world has increased significantly in the last 2 years (not just with phones, but also with embedded devices like TVs), and trying to get a single implementation of a runtime across all of them is no longer really practical (many of the devices are closed platforms that do not allow extensibility). This is true for any single runtime implementation - whether it is Silverlight, Flash, Java, Cocoa, a specific HTML5 implementation, or something else. If people want to have maximum reach across *all* devices then HTML will provide the broadest reach (this is true with HTML4 today - and will eventually be true with HTML5 in the future). One of the things we as a company are working hard on is making sure we have the best browser and HTML5 implementation on Windows devices through the great work we are doing with IE9.

This by no means should be interpreted as Silverlight not being important. We all know the importance of having the richest possible experiences for key platforms and form-factors, and the value that consumers (both end-users and enterprise) attribute to it. This is not just a true statement for Microsoft platforms - but has obviously been demonstrated by many others as well (Apple being an example). Silverlight is a strategic technology from Microsoft that enables developers to build those, and we think our investments and focus (in particular with the above three areas) provides us with an incredibly compelling and differentiated platform to do so. We’ll be sharing more details about some of the great Silverlight improvements coming in the future soon.

 

[falcarrion]

Do you... Do you know what logic means?

Listen if you want to make this personal go right a head.
I came here to this thread to dicuss the character builder.
And to read what others have to say.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I came here to this thread to dicuss the character builder.

Well, then discuss the Character Builder as it is... and stop discussing the complete removal of all 4E material that you suggest WotC is planning for the Character Builder. Because you are basically just making stuff up when you do.

 

[Morrus]

How is this change going to make things better for me?I guess the point is WotC thinks this move will net them more cash. It's not about making the game more enjoyable for me.

It will keep folks on WotC's site rather than elsewhere. It's a small step towards doing all your online gaming at wizards.com.

 

[Ryujin]

What you call flawed logic could very well happen.
Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.
You can write a 200 page report of why my logic is flawed, but that doesn't mean it is. It is what it is, a possability.

That shows a flaw in the logic, an incomplete understanding, not a flaw in the bee.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It might serve to flesh out Dungeon and Dragon to the point that people stop complaining about their decline though.

Uh... no.

Here's easy bet #1.

Essentials is the new D&D. Old class support? Yeah. I'll gladly eat crow but not going to happen. We'll see more essential versions of these classes.

Now I'm curious if the supposed Bladesinger from the upcoming FR neverwinter nights thing is going to be a new class or the essential version of the swordmage.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Uh... no.

Here's easy bet #1.

Essentials is the new D&D. Old class support? Yeah. I'll gladly eat crow but not going to happen. We'll see more essential versions of these classes.

Now I'm curious if the supposed Bladesinger from the upcoming FR neverwinter nights thing is going to be a new class or the essential version of the swordmage.

I agree but not for the reasons I believe your are proposing it. There are 416 fighter powers in the Compendium right now of which 41 are from essentials, I do not believe the older class formats need much more support right now.

 

[renau1g]

Tell that to the Rune Priests

 

[DracoSuave]

Logicaly a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it does.

I don't take lessons in logic from someone who does not present that if something does occur, then it can occur.

Moreover, what you're meaning here is science.

And science is pretty clear that if hypothesis states an observable phenomenon is not possible, but said phenomenon does actually occur, then the hypothesis is disproven.

The reason I point this out is because defending an appeal to emotion, framing it as logic, and then erroneously saying that because logic can produce an incorrect conclusion in an unrelated case that therefore your appeal to emotion can produce a correct result in a completely different context is, itself...

I'd use a metaphor for how full of holes your logic is, and compare it to swiss cheese, except swiss cheese actually contains cheese, and therefore has some substance and flavor, whereas your logic does not contain anything but hole.