We still use IE 6 at work and even xp eol couldn't kill it due to 2 must have apps which are impossible to ever replace.
Help me understand. If a piece of software was written once, why couldn't a piece of software that has the same functionality be written in a different language? Was there some sort of resource expended in creating the original software which no longer exists? Or are you using a different meaning of the word "impossible?"
Our training only works with ancient insecure flash 11 at work due to a 10 year old version of premier which created our slides.
And your solution is to keep using IE 6 and Flash 11? This is the best that the brightest minds at your company have come up with? The company I work for makes training all day, every day, using modern standards, so what exactly is stopping your company from updating your materials? We get update contracts all the time, why is your company special? Is it because you have shit management and no plan for the future?
Lock the browser out of flash and we will stick with obsolete version
I hate to point this out, but you already are sticking with an obsolete version, even though newer things are available now. You have made the decision that you are going to stick with old outdated things, even though you have newer options. Your decision did not have anything to do with browsers not running Flash, so if Flash is locked out you will still be doing the same thing you always have. Apparently you guys haven't figured out that updating your materials is the only realistic long-term strategy, instead you've decided to hang on to the obsolete until your position is completely untenable, and then rush around replacing everything at great expense. That's some pretty impressive decision-making you guys have going on over there. But, please, stop trying to pull everyone else down with you. We're moving on from Flash. We don't care if you will or not, we're going to do it anyway. You guys can either figure out that your solution is the worst of all possible solutions, or you can keep holding on to your ancient technology and rock yourself to sleep with the cold comfort that things will never, ever, ever, change.
See the IAB (which still mentions silverlight alongside javascript) which sets standards, about killing flash, then you might see change.
I think you've got that backwards. Some advertising board doesn't get to dictate what technologies we use. We figure that part out, and the advertisers can either adapt or stop advertising. If Flash adoption goes down to 10%, do you think the advertisers are still going to be pumping out Flash ads?
It's similar for me. By car, my trip is about 26 miles and takes about 30 minutes and uses about a gallon of gas. The bus would take about 2 hours and cost $4, according to my local bus trip planning web site. Right now the bus is more or less the same cost but takes 4 times as long, and requires me to walk in the lovely desert heat for about 2/3 of a mile. Cutting that $4 cost isn't enough to make me give up the hour and a half (each way) of extra time required.
The Democrats championed slavery for more than a century, then fought against integration for another one after that. Bull Conner was a Democrat, and the only KKK member in Congress was a Democrat. Racism is bred deep into the bones of the Democratic party, and it will take a lot longer than these past few years to be rid of it.
Yeah, no shit, did I suggest anything different? The conservative Democrats fought to retain slavery against the liberal Republicans, that is what happened. If you bothered to look at what I was responding to you would realize that I was responding to the apparent claim that "conservative equals Republican." That may be fairly true today, but it is not a universal truth throughout US history. Racist "Southern gentleman" Democrats were definitely not liberal, they were extremely conservative.
And, yes, many self-identified Democrats "moved to the Republican party" when it became clear that the Democratic party was moving to the left of the Republican party. If you've been paying attention to American politics for the last couple decades you'll have noticed that the old, conservative, religious, racist white guys are now Republicans, not Democrats. Those old racists would have been Democrats when they were young racists, but now the parties are different.
You mean the one that Fritz Hollings, the Democrat, fought to install, in the 1960s? The one that the S.C Legislature, under the control of Democrats for most of the last 50 years, kept up?
Yes, fuckface, that's the one. Did you have another one in mind? The Democratic party is the oldest political party in the world still in existence, and for much of its history it has had conservative factions. Even up until the 1980s Southern populists were Democrats until moving to the Republican party. If you think "conservative" is a synonym for "Republican" then you're an idiot. Conservative Democrats created that flag, and were instrumental in keeping it there (I'll ignore the fact that conservative Republicans in the SC legislature are the only ones against the flag's removal, because if it was another time they might have been conservative Democrats; either way they would still be conservative).
I doubt that a game with a $40 million annual advertising budget, including Super Bowl ads, would rely on mistaking them for something else. They're obviously trying to spread their name, I just think they chose a really lazy name. From what I hear from reviewers, it also sounds like their gameplay is equally lazy, but put Kate Upton's boobs on TV and they earn $600 million with a shit cash-grab game.
His problem isn't that he's a stupid kid, his problem is that he's a narcissist. That's a personality disorder, jail time isn't going to fix it. He needs to admit that he has a major personality problem (which, as it turns out, isn't all that common for a narcissist to do) and then seek help through therapy (also not all that common). If he doesn't take the steps necessary to back away from that cliff then no amount of jail will "rehabilitate" what is wrong with him.
Game Of War really bugs me, not because I've ever played it and had a problem with the actual game, or because of the ads, but because of the name. It's just lazy. "Game Of War", really? I imagine the first meeting with the new advertising firm.
"OK, what are we selling here?"
[slight accent]"Well, we've got a game of war."
"And a name! 'Game Of War', got it, let's not spend another second thinking about that, now let's talk about whose boobs we're going to show everyone."
Local news sites have been some of the worst for me. I found one site that told my browser to keep downloading some resource from an ad network (no idea what it was) as long as the window was open, I just happened to have network tools open to see it. By the time I finished reading the story and closed the page the browser had downloaded tens of MB.
Even though it's funded by adblock, I still believe it. May not be such high percentages, but it will certainly take a measurable chunk away.
So you're saying that you believe that making fewer requests for less content results in less traffic? It's good that you believe that, now I will believe it also. I didn't want to be the only one.
You think that a program fixing bugs faster than a programmer can is impressive? Just wait until next week when I unveil my program that can solve a Towers Of Hanoi puzzle faster than a person can.
This just in: computers can do work faster than people. Film at 11.
The AC is trying to shrewdly point out that Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. And I'd like to thank him, too, because I always just assumed they were a charity or government organization. Nope, turns out they're a for-profit corporation. Thanks, AC!
Whats with the ironic tone used in this "article"?
I'm not sure, but one thing I did notice was that the submitter for this article (reifman) is also the submitter for the previous article (the "Slashdot reported" link), and the other link is a link to his personal blog. The previous article links to an article that Jeff Reifman wrote at crosscut.com, and has a link that says "Nevada tax dodge" which points to an article at kplu.org that quotes Jeff Reifman.
I don't know what this means. I don't know if Microsoft is dodging Washington taxes via their office in Nevada, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I do know that Jeff Reifman has a huge boner for Microsoft.
You're conflating the vulnerability with the weapon. The weapon is not the vulnerability, the weapon is the piece of code that exploits or attacks the vulnerability. Those pieces of code are most certainly material.
Oh goody! Does this mean there's nothing wrong with targeting African Americans with watermelon and fried chicken ads?
Do you see a problem with that? Do you think that we need a law saying that if you are advertising watermelons then you are required to target all races equally, or do you think that you're searching for a problem that doesn't exist and that such a thing is a stupid place to waste anyone's time legislating?
Another example would be vacant apartment advertisements targeted towards white. Not much different than placing an ad in Craigslist with a "whites preferred" disclaimer.
Actually there's quite a bit of difference. If you are running an apartment complex, and you notice that 85% of your residents are single white males between the ages of 20 and 29 making less than $40,000 per year, then are you being racist if you put out an ad for your apartments that targets single white males between the ages of 20 and 29 making less than $40,000 per year? Is it sexist? Saying "whites preferred" is overtly racist. Advertising to the group of people who already use your product or service is not racist. It's like you're saying that you have an ethical problem that a sportswear company would target athletes with their advertising.
Are you suggesting that there needs to be some sort of legislation enacted, some sort of rule, saying that if you are advertising for jobs then you must target men and women equally? If you're not suggesting a legislative solution to this perceived problem, then what are you suggesting?
Women purchase the vast majority of consumer products, including half of "traditional male" products. So, it would make sense that the majority of ads would also be targeted at women. If the majority of ads are targeted at women, then the chance of any one woman seeing a particular ad is reduced compared to the chance that a man would see the same ad (assuming, of course, that the ad in question targets both men and women).
Also, I'm not sure what "LMOL" means, but your reply was one of the dumbest ever. If you don't have anything intelligent to add, just keep your mouth shut instead of letting everyone know that you have nothing intelligent to say.
I mourn for the days of old, when you loaded your untested code onto a live turret to figure out if it worked. Kids these days, what with their coddling and non-threatening spheres.
I would definitely be a net positive if they manage to update it in the background. Right now my update process goes something like this:
A small popup indicating that Flash needs to be updated. Click to update. Web browser opens to whatever page on adobe.com. Download installer. Save and run. Installer runs, tells me to close my browser that the updater just opened to download the file. Flash will now not nag me for another 2 days or so.
If they manage that in the background like a normal sane update process in 2015 then maybe Adobe needs to hire them.
Slashdot Mirror
We still use IE 6 at work and even xp eol couldn't kill it due to 2 must have apps which are impossible to ever replace.
Help me understand. If a piece of software was written once, why couldn't a piece of software that has the same functionality be written in a different language? Was there some sort of resource expended in creating the original software which no longer exists? Or are you using a different meaning of the word "impossible?"
Our training only works with ancient insecure flash 11 at work due to a 10 year old version of premier which created our slides.
And your solution is to keep using IE 6 and Flash 11? This is the best that the brightest minds at your company have come up with? The company I work for makes training all day, every day, using modern standards, so what exactly is stopping your company from updating your materials? We get update contracts all the time, why is your company special? Is it because you have shit management and no plan for the future?
Lock the browser out of flash and we will stick with obsolete version
I hate to point this out, but you already are sticking with an obsolete version, even though newer things are available now. You have made the decision that you are going to stick with old outdated things, even though you have newer options. Your decision did not have anything to do with browsers not running Flash, so if Flash is locked out you will still be doing the same thing you always have. Apparently you guys haven't figured out that updating your materials is the only realistic long-term strategy, instead you've decided to hang on to the obsolete until your position is completely untenable, and then rush around replacing everything at great expense. That's some pretty impressive decision-making you guys have going on over there. But, please, stop trying to pull everyone else down with you. We're moving on from Flash. We don't care if you will or not, we're going to do it anyway. You guys can either figure out that your solution is the worst of all possible solutions, or you can keep holding on to your ancient technology and rock yourself to sleep with the cold comfort that things will never, ever, ever, change.
See the IAB (which still mentions silverlight alongside javascript) which sets standards, about killing flash, then you might see change.
I think you've got that backwards. Some advertising board doesn't get to dictate what technologies we use. We figure that part out, and the advertisers can either adapt or stop advertising. If Flash adoption goes down to 10%, do you think the advertisers are still going to be pumping out Flash ads?
It's similar for me. By car, my trip is about 26 miles and takes about 30 minutes and uses about a gallon of gas. The bus would take about 2 hours and cost $4, according to my local bus trip planning web site. Right now the bus is more or less the same cost but takes 4 times as long, and requires me to walk in the lovely desert heat for about 2/3 of a mile. Cutting that $4 cost isn't enough to make me give up the hour and a half (each way) of extra time required.
Mars' largest volcano, Mons Olympus, could not stand on Earth
Why, would it tip over?
The Democrats championed slavery for more than a century, then fought against integration for another one after that. Bull Conner was a Democrat, and the only KKK member in Congress was a Democrat. Racism is bred deep into the bones of the Democratic party, and it will take a lot longer than these past few years to be rid of it.
Yeah, no shit, did I suggest anything different? The conservative Democrats fought to retain slavery against the liberal Republicans, that is what happened. If you bothered to look at what I was responding to you would realize that I was responding to the apparent claim that "conservative equals Republican." That may be fairly true today, but it is not a universal truth throughout US history. Racist "Southern gentleman" Democrats were definitely not liberal, they were extremely conservative.
And, yes, many self-identified Democrats "moved to the Republican party" when it became clear that the Democratic party was moving to the left of the Republican party. If you've been paying attention to American politics for the last couple decades you'll have noticed that the old, conservative, religious, racist white guys are now Republicans, not Democrats. Those old racists would have been Democrats when they were young racists, but now the parties are different.
In conclusion, piss off.
the racist conservative battle flag
You mean the one that Fritz Hollings, the Democrat, fought to install, in the 1960s?
The one that the S.C Legislature, under the control of Democrats for most of the last 50 years, kept up?
Yes, fuckface, that's the one. Did you have another one in mind? The Democratic party is the oldest political party in the world still in existence, and for much of its history it has had conservative factions. Even up until the 1980s Southern populists were Democrats until moving to the Republican party. If you think "conservative" is a synonym for "Republican" then you're an idiot. Conservative Democrats created that flag, and were instrumental in keeping it there (I'll ignore the fact that conservative Republicans in the SC legislature are the only ones against the flag's removal, because if it was another time they might have been conservative Democrats; either way they would still be conservative).
Narcissists don't actually love themselves, but they're happy to try and convince you that they're the best thing to ever happen.
I doubt that a game with a $40 million annual advertising budget, including Super Bowl ads, would rely on mistaking them for something else. They're obviously trying to spread their name, I just think they chose a really lazy name. From what I hear from reviewers, it also sounds like their gameplay is equally lazy, but put Kate Upton's boobs on TV and they earn $600 million with a shit cash-grab game.
Otherwise known as a narcissist.
His problem isn't that he's a stupid kid, his problem is that he's a narcissist. That's a personality disorder, jail time isn't going to fix it. He needs to admit that he has a major personality problem (which, as it turns out, isn't all that common for a narcissist to do) and then seek help through therapy (also not all that common). If he doesn't take the steps necessary to back away from that cliff then no amount of jail will "rehabilitate" what is wrong with him.
Game Of War really bugs me, not because I've ever played it and had a problem with the actual game, or because of the ads, but because of the name. It's just lazy. "Game Of War", really? I imagine the first meeting with the new advertising firm.
"OK, what are we selling here?"
[slight accent]"Well, we've got a game of war."
"And a name! 'Game Of War', got it, let's not spend another second thinking about that, now let's talk about whose boobs we're going to show everyone."
Local news sites have been some of the worst for me. I found one site that told my browser to keep downloading some resource from an ad network (no idea what it was) as long as the window was open, I just happened to have network tools open to see it. By the time I finished reading the story and closed the page the browser had downloaded tens of MB.
Even though it's funded by adblock, I still believe it. May not be such high percentages, but it will certainly take a measurable chunk away.
So you're saying that you believe that making fewer requests for less content results in less traffic? It's good that you believe that, now I will believe it also. I didn't want to be the only one.
Run the program, wait a bit and your done.
You think that a program fixing bugs faster than a programmer can is impressive? Just wait until next week when I unveil my program that can solve a Towers Of Hanoi puzzle faster than a person can.
This just in: computers can do work faster than people. Film at 11.
The AC is trying to shrewdly point out that Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. And I'd like to thank him, too, because I always just assumed they were a charity or government organization. Nope, turns out they're a for-profit corporation. Thanks, AC!
Sorry for the self-reply.
I do know that Jeff Reifman has a huge boner for Microsoft.
I meant to say that he has a... huge micro soft boner?
Whatever. Carry on.
Whats with the ironic tone used in this "article"?
I'm not sure, but one thing I did notice was that the submitter for this article (reifman) is also the submitter for the previous article (the "Slashdot reported" link), and the other link is a link to his personal blog. The previous article links to an article that Jeff Reifman wrote at crosscut.com, and has a link that says "Nevada tax dodge" which points to an article at kplu.org that quotes Jeff Reifman.
I don't know what this means. I don't know if Microsoft is dodging Washington taxes via their office in Nevada, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I do know that Jeff Reifman has a huge boner for Microsoft.
This company needs to just be banned from producing any software, period, unless they provide the source code as well.
And you should be banned from holding any public office.
You're conflating the vulnerability with the weapon. The weapon is not the vulnerability, the weapon is the piece of code that exploits or attacks the vulnerability. Those pieces of code are most certainly material.
Oh goody! Does this mean there's nothing wrong with targeting African Americans with watermelon and fried chicken ads?
Do you see a problem with that? Do you think that we need a law saying that if you are advertising watermelons then you are required to target all races equally, or do you think that you're searching for a problem that doesn't exist and that such a thing is a stupid place to waste anyone's time legislating?
Another example would be vacant apartment advertisements targeted towards white. Not much different than placing an ad in Craigslist with a "whites preferred" disclaimer.
Actually there's quite a bit of difference. If you are running an apartment complex, and you notice that 85% of your residents are single white males between the ages of 20 and 29 making less than $40,000 per year, then are you being racist if you put out an ad for your apartments that targets single white males between the ages of 20 and 29 making less than $40,000 per year? Is it sexist? Saying "whites preferred" is overtly racist. Advertising to the group of people who already use your product or service is not racist. It's like you're saying that you have an ethical problem that a sportswear company would target athletes with their advertising.
Are you suggesting that there needs to be some sort of legislation enacted, some sort of rule, saying that if you are advertising for jobs then you must target men and women equally? If you're not suggesting a legislative solution to this perceived problem, then what are you suggesting?
Women purchase the vast majority of consumer products, including half of "traditional male" products. So, it would make sense that the majority of ads would also be targeted at women. If the majority of ads are targeted at women, then the chance of any one woman seeing a particular ad is reduced compared to the chance that a man would see the same ad (assuming, of course, that the ad in question targets both men and women).
Also, I'm not sure what "LMOL" means, but your reply was one of the dumbest ever. If you don't have anything intelligent to add, just keep your mouth shut instead of letting everyone know that you have nothing intelligent to say.
I mourn for the days of old, when you loaded your untested code onto a live turret to figure out if it worked. Kids these days, what with their coddling and non-threatening spheres.
I would definitely be a net positive if they manage to update it in the background. Right now my update process goes something like this:
A small popup indicating that Flash needs to be updated.
Click to update.
Web browser opens to whatever page on adobe.com.
Download installer.
Save and run.
Installer runs, tells me to close my browser that the updater just opened to download the file.
Flash will now not nag me for another 2 days or so.
If they manage that in the background like a normal sane update process in 2015 then maybe Adobe needs to hire them.
Front page != most visited
Are you suggesting that the front page of a newspaper is not the one that is read the most?