No, Flash isn't dead. It's dying. And by 'dying', it is dropping from vastly dominate to simply dominate. It is doomed, eventually, but right now it's only lost it's dominance in certain niches. It's only real competitor is HTML5/javascript, and right now that combination has nowhere near the power or performance of Flash.
Flash has all sorts of sucky attributes, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's dead. It's dying like chubby fifty-year-old; it's going to happen, but it might be a long time.
Flash is pretty kludgy, if you're using the drag-and-drop features, but if you drop all that and program in Actionscript, it's not bad at all. Actionscript is like a faster javascript with a lot more sensible features (typing, classes, package management) and a huge graphics api. FAR better than programming graphics in HTML5/Javascript with canvas. Of course, it's not an open standard.
Add a few more for the companies I work with. I suspect that anybody working on non-tech site will say the same. IE is significantly ahead of competitors both in visitor and pageview metrics. And no, I'm not an MS employee. I used to prefer Firefox, now I use Chrome, and don't really like ANY browser any more.
the libertarians are opposed at a philosophical level to just about everything feminists believe beyond that women should have equal opportunities and rights.
That's amusing yet true. Libertarians oppose feminists because libertarians are against sexism.
I believe you've demonstrated the most sexism of all the hundreds of posters in this thread. Do some honest self-examination, and try to understand how you've become the very thing you hate.
I do not have anything to back this up, but my suspicion is that women are not only underrepresented but HUGELY underrepresented in this field.
I think you're right, in the sense that the field has a massive gender gap. The problem is... what if it is because women, by a vast majority, don't want to be in this field? If that is true, than every effort to push women into a CS Degree is doing a further disservice to a woman.
Ideally, all the women that want to be CS Majors should get a shot at it, and NO MORE. The workforce is composed of people, with desires and freedom of choice, not 'human resources' that need to be allocated equally.
Please save your stupid "I'm an Aspie, LOOK AT MEEEE!!" crap thanks, no one cares.
No, you just aren't accustomed to casual use of extended vocabularies. That didn't read as somebody showing off, but rather as if somebody wasn't trying to simplify their words to coddle people like you.
That is claimed to be refuted by one of the citations in the original article.
The refutation is obviously flawed. Count those who program for fun without a CS degree. What percentage are male? 90% plus, no doubt.
Gender discrepancies in hiring is FAR less damaging than trying to force people into fields they don't wish to be in. Give women more respect, and be less patronizing. Let them choose, and understand that they don't HAVE to make all the same choices as men.
You're displaying ignorance of libertarianism. That undercuts your argument, and actually adds credence to the other side. You would have acquitted yourself better by not saying anything at all.
If the government had been in charge of security at the time, the terrorists would still have been able to do so. The reason they can't now has nothing to do with the TSA. This is obvious.
I think the nationalization of the TSA was partly a power grab, and partly good intentions by our politicians. They thought, just like you, that the government could do it better. Just like you, they still think so, unfazed by evidence.
Nah, that's just silly. State's rights are an economic and civil liberties issue; people want power to reside in a government that is closer to them than the Feds. No state is pushing discrimination, and no state WILL push discrimination... that's just an attempt to tie a movement you don't like to something nasty from a hundred years ago.
Our government has a system of checks and balances; the commonly mentioned balance is between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government. A balance that is not mentioned is the check that states place on the federal government, and vice versa... equally as important, but it's a balance that has become totally akimbo over the last 5-10 decades. The federal government now dictates to the states, which are powerless to respond. It has gone past the point of self-correction.
What McCain was referring to was not combat operations, but the possibility of long-term joint military bases. To imply he was talking about combat operations or hostilities is dishonest and/or naive.
This is true (and rather obvious). Sadly, the people reading your comment will ignore what you said, and use McCain's quote as a talking point again in the future. Truth doesn't matter as much as juicy partisan quips.
This is a bit like criticizing Obama because he is selling our secrets to the Martians. Making successful arguments against something which is NOT AT ALL TRUE is not hard, but it also isn't any form of victory. It may feel like a victory, but that's simply a consequence of your own faulty understanding.
Let me put it this way: Why should we listen to you, a wife beater and crack cocaine user? Wife beaters and crack cocaine users are bad.
Agree, and why I would oppose them here in the states. They're a bit like the 99% loons. Their core and initial point, protesting against bailouts and corruption on wall street, is absolutely legitimate. But the movement quickly became so saturated with far left-wing rhetoric that they've lost support of all rational people. And I mean far left wing, advocating communism with straightfaced earnest ignorance.
He was talking about textbook publishers. I can forgive a lot of profanity on that subject from anybody that's been through higher education, just like I would forgive a WW2 veteran's expletive-loaded rant about the Third Reich.
Like everyone says, it isn't right and we are all hoping the rise of etextbooks will cancel all of this nonsense out like streaming (etc.) canceled out regionalism of DVDs.
It won't, though. If the government is willing to collude with publishers to pass laws preventing you from getting your hands on $10 textbooks, they will have no qualms about forcing you to purchase $75 e-textbooks. There's no difference in principle.
I like how mod my comments are modded as Troll when I'm trying to explain why the situation is what it is yet your profanity laden brash response without any understanding of the concept is moderated as "Insightful."
It's because he's right. That can overcome really poor presentation, sometimes.
However, unlike the poster you're responding to I don't feel that having a child is irresponsible because of the public school system. I believe it's immoral because there are so many millions of orphans in the world, that if you want to raise a child selecting from that pool is the only moral option.
I'm on child four. They're all bright, intelligent, ranging in age from 23 years to six months. I hope they each have at least a couple kids of their own.
Just wanted to let you know, I spit at your twisted claims of morality.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Flash isn't dead. It's dying. And by 'dying', it is dropping from vastly dominate to simply dominate. It is doomed, eventually, but right now it's only lost it's dominance in certain niches. It's only real competitor is HTML5/javascript, and right now that combination has nowhere near the power or performance of Flash.
Flash has all sorts of sucky attributes, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's dead. It's dying like chubby fifty-year-old; it's going to happen, but it might be a long time.
Flash is pretty kludgy, if you're using the drag-and-drop features, but if you drop all that and program in Actionscript, it's not bad at all. Actionscript is like a faster javascript with a lot more sensible features (typing, classes, package management) and a huge graphics api. FAR better than programming graphics in HTML5/Javascript with canvas. Of course, it's not an open standard.
Add a few more for the companies I work with. I suspect that anybody working on non-tech site will say the same. IE is significantly ahead of competitors both in visitor and pageview metrics. And no, I'm not an MS employee. I used to prefer Firefox, now I use Chrome, and don't really like ANY browser any more.
(Maybe Opera, just on principle.)
I think he was joking.
Actually, it's clear he was joking. And that's ok; ever hear women joke about men? They do it constantly, and that's ok too.
the libertarians are opposed at a philosophical level to just about everything feminists believe beyond that women should have equal opportunities and rights.
That's amusing yet true. Libertarians oppose feminists because libertarians are against sexism.
I believe you've demonstrated the most sexism of all the hundreds of posters in this thread. Do some honest self-examination, and try to understand how you've become the very thing you hate.
I do not have anything to back this up, but my suspicion is that women are not only underrepresented but HUGELY underrepresented in this field.
I think you're right, in the sense that the field has a massive gender gap. The problem is... what if it is because women, by a vast majority, don't want to be in this field? If that is true, than every effort to push women into a CS Degree is doing a further disservice to a woman.
Ideally, all the women that want to be CS Majors should get a shot at it, and NO MORE. The workforce is composed of people, with desires and freedom of choice, not 'human resources' that need to be allocated equally.
Please save your stupid "I'm an Aspie, LOOK AT MEEEE!!" crap thanks, no one cares.
No, you just aren't accustomed to casual use of extended vocabularies. That didn't read as somebody showing off, but rather as if somebody wasn't trying to simplify their words to coddle people like you.
That is claimed to be refuted by one of the citations in the original article.
The refutation is obviously flawed. Count those who program for fun without a CS degree. What percentage are male? 90% plus, no doubt.
Gender discrepancies in hiring is FAR less damaging than trying to force people into fields they don't wish to be in. Give women more respect, and be less patronizing. Let them choose, and understand that they don't HAVE to make all the same choices as men.
Yet, the TSA is worse than the private industry it replaced. Reality doesn't alway play along with your political preconceptions.
You're displaying ignorance of libertarianism. That undercuts your argument, and actually adds credence to the other side. You would have acquitted yourself better by not saying anything at all.
No Government Oversight and Responsibility is his middle name.
That's why he has my support.
Well, in fairness, the GP had a meaningful point, then messed it up by making wacko accusations against the US Solicitor General.
If the government had been in charge of security at the time, the terrorists would still have been able to do so. The reason they can't now has nothing to do with the TSA. This is obvious.
I think the nationalization of the TSA was partly a power grab, and partly good intentions by our politicians. They thought, just like you, that the government could do it better. Just like you, they still think so, unfazed by evidence.
The problem is that Rand Paul isn't suggesting that the groping stop. He's suggesting that it be *privatized*
Do you understand that it WAS private, until the US nationalized it ten years ago? He's suggesting we go back to normal.
we were scanning shoes before the TSA weren't we?
No.
Ok, why is it racist? I can't think of a reason, and I'm curious.
Nah, that's just silly. State's rights are an economic and civil liberties issue; people want power to reside in a government that is closer to them than the Feds. No state is pushing discrimination, and no state WILL push discrimination... that's just an attempt to tie a movement you don't like to something nasty from a hundred years ago.
Our government has a system of checks and balances; the commonly mentioned balance is between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government. A balance that is not mentioned is the check that states place on the federal government, and vice versa... equally as important, but it's a balance that has become totally akimbo over the last 5-10 decades. The federal government now dictates to the states, which are powerless to respond. It has gone past the point of self-correction.
What McCain was referring to was not combat operations, but the possibility of long-term joint military bases. To imply he was talking about combat operations or hostilities is dishonest and/or naive.
This is true (and rather obvious). Sadly, the people reading your comment will ignore what you said, and use McCain's quote as a talking point again in the future. Truth doesn't matter as much as juicy partisan quips.
This is a bit like criticizing Obama because he is selling our secrets to the Martians. Making successful arguments against something which is NOT AT ALL TRUE is not hard, but it also isn't any form of victory. It may feel like a victory, but that's simply a consequence of your own faulty understanding.
Let me put it this way: Why should we listen to you, a wife beater and crack cocaine user? Wife beaters and crack cocaine users are bad.
Do you understand?
Agree, and why I would oppose them here in the states. They're a bit like the 99% loons. Their core and initial point, protesting against bailouts and corruption on wall street, is absolutely legitimate. But the movement quickly became so saturated with far left-wing rhetoric that they've lost support of all rational people. And I mean far left wing, advocating communism with straightfaced earnest ignorance.
He was talking about textbook publishers. I can forgive a lot of profanity on that subject from anybody that's been through higher education, just like I would forgive a WW2 veteran's expletive-loaded rant about the Third Reich.
Like everyone says, it isn't right and we are all hoping the rise of etextbooks will cancel all of this nonsense out like streaming (etc.) canceled out regionalism of DVDs.
It won't, though. If the government is willing to collude with publishers to pass laws preventing you from getting your hands on $10 textbooks, they will have no qualms about forcing you to purchase $75 e-textbooks. There's no difference in principle.
I like how mod my comments are modded as Troll when I'm trying to explain why the situation is what it is yet your profanity laden brash response without any understanding of the concept is moderated as "Insightful."
It's because he's right. That can overcome really poor presentation, sometimes.
However, unlike the poster you're responding to I don't feel that having a child is irresponsible because of the public school system. I believe it's immoral because there are so many millions of orphans in the world, that if you want to raise a child selecting from that pool is the only moral option.
I'm on child four. They're all bright, intelligent, ranging in age from 23 years to six months. I hope they each have at least a couple kids of their own.
Just wanted to let you know, I spit at your twisted claims of morality.