Would religion be able to withstand the discovery that there is no God?
(Religion is here to stay.)
Re:FYI SLASH-TARDS -- What Flash can do:
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
I simply described some of the things *Flash* can do -- b/c so many people here just don't know. (...Among the things I didn't mention, you can create MAC/PC desktop apps, using the same codebase.)
What you are describing is what can *maybe* be done in a couple dozen different browsers (+ versions), in dozens of different ways.
e.g.: How about older versions of Safari? No native XML support. Poor JavaScript performance. It does, however, run Flash.
> You have a presentation format that wraps up presentation, scripting and content into one binary bundle that couples everything together so tightly it's impossible to decompose.
This is simply false.
SWFs can load external XML data, CSS, or text files (which you can parse however you wish).
SWFs can load other SWFs -- which you can use to store/reuse code, in a modular library.
SWFs can load an assorted variety of graphic file formats -- so you could create something that is like PowerPoint -- but better, b/c it could be data-driven. (You can detect a "slow connection," and either: not load the images, or better: load low-bandwidth versions.)
Both capabilities exist at *run time* -- and I'm not bothering w/ describing to you how to manage code files and classes in the IDE.
Flash is weak at rendering text -- it does not rely on the OS....But that is a tradeoff so that you can bundle custom fonts w/ your SWF, and have them display consistently across browsers and platforms, w/ precise layout and animation possibilities.
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
Agreed.
And many people here seem unaware that you can composite images and text on top of that video....while you can crop and mask that video with an irregular shape.
In other words, you can dynamically place content from multiple data sources -- possibly unique for each user -- on top of, or adjacent to, that video. (data loaded via HTTP at run-time, in the Flash player.)
OTOH, the fewer people that understand this, the more marketable my skillz will be.
-- talks about plans for supporting FP 9 on Linux, and 64-bit architectures.
Re:FYI SLASH-TARDS -- What Flash can do:
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
I am a lowly slash-tard -- as are many posters in this thread.
I'm just not a geek.;)
Obviously, somebodies like you got offended by the title of my *very informative* post -- and modded it "Flamebait." Shame.
Re:FYI SLASH-TARDS -- What Flash can do:
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
It behaves consistently in a given player version (w/ excellent backwards compatibility), across all platforms to which it has been ported.
Flash player 7 or better is on what -- 95% of all web-connected machines in the U.S.? Not to mention, versions of the Flash Player on some mobile devices?
FP 8 was released around the time of the Adobe aquisition/debacle. FP 9 was only released very recently; Player Support is like ripples in pond: Many obscure edge cases have not been reached, yet. (I accept that some never will.)
That's a large set of features I listed -- I don't see any other as-capable, cost-competetive technology.
FYI SLASH-TARDS -- What Flash can do:
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Flash should be used where one needs to use Flash, and HTML/JS/CSS (+XML+XSLT) likewise.
Flash behaves consistently cross-browser, cross/platform -- and most features cannot be disabled by the user. (compare that to a user being able to turn off JS, or Java -- something often mandated in a corporate environment.) It's either "all on" or "all off." (w/ a few minor exceptions, eg: local storage and camera/mic access.)
Flash has a large install base. It's arguably the most widely available platform for delivering media-rich "applications" over the web.
Flash does not rely on anywhere near the number of kludges and workarounds necessary to replicate similar features -- where possible -- in different browsers and browser *versions.* (Unlike various browser technologies, supported features are more stable across updates of the Flash Player.)
Not to sound like I work for MM/Adobe, but, here's what the Flash Player can do at *run time*:
Flash can load and play external MP3 audio.
Flash can play video. That is not possible w/ HTML/CSS/JS.
Flash can render text -- w/ custom-defined and packaged fonts. (not possible in a browser.) It can apply a limited set of CSS to the rendered text.
Flash can load/parse/serialize/send XML.
Flash can POST and GET a variety of data.
Flash can access a user's webcam, allowing you to create your own video chat/IM app.
Flash can programatically-build vector shapes, gradients, and fills.
Flash can load and render external jpegs, gifs(v8), and pngs(v8) -- and in version 8, composite all that w/ vector graphics (+video?) -- *and,* sample the resulting display pixel by pixel. (w/ server interaction, you could dynamically generate graphic files.)
Flash 8 has a "file upload" ability that goes beyond what a browser is capable of: You can multi-select upload files, filter files by type or size, and have programatic access to the state of the upload.
Flash can animate stuff!!!
Flash is like a 2 MB download that works in almost *every* browser out there....it's pretty phenomenal that all those features could have been crammed into it. (like: a built-in interpreter for a late-version-EcmaScript-compliant scripting language.)
How about:
"Revert to a state more like that which existed on Earth a billion years ago."
And:
"Primitive micro-organisms are supplanting more complex life forms in the world's oceans." (Yes, the terms "primitive" and "complex" apply.)
There, fixed it for you.
Now, can all you geeks stop focusing on the terminology -- and address the real, underlying issues at hand?
Imagine two people, walking a hundered meters apart, on the horizon, seen though a powerful telephoto lense ten miles away.
If their positions form a line pointing at the telescope, then they could appear to be nearly the same size, like they were right "next" to each other.
At a distance of 400 light years, the planet that is "behind" should actually be rendered *larger.* (if one is not nearly, directly behind the other, then there is a problem. OTOH, there is *some* perspective where that view could be valid.)
The disks should be rendered as more "flat," I'll give you that.
2.) Would it be crazy to have CSS incorporate data selection and assembly? (using something like XPath -- alowing more complete segration of data and formatting.)
Time and again, the side that the U.S. supported was far more violent. Not to mention -- we shouldn't be intervening to decide other peoples' affairs, inthe first place.
The U.S. staged a Coup d'Etat of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala in 1954. A civil war and genocide ensued. Chile? El Salvador? Brazil?
It was Republican administrations that mostly initiated and supported these types of viscious, anti-democratic, and unprovoked interventions. The Dems occasionally did, too -- but it was mostly the GOP.
We should revisit this history. Where you stand is an indicator of your basic humanity.
The leakers are mostly pointing out *illegal acts* that are being carried out by our government. Don't we live in a democracy?
The sad fact is that the current adminiistration is often simply trying to hide their illegal/immoral acts by labeling them as "classified."
I would argue that these people who who say they are "defending" America -- have actually helped kill more Americans than the attacks on 9/11.
Think: disaster planning and relief, health care, and more generally: economic policies that affect any number of "quality of life" or even just "life" issues impacting a majority of Americans.
They have carried out many policies (in lieu of known, better alternatives) that had predictable results ahead of time; therefore, their negligence is willful and "deliberate," and not "accidental."
Who is the "we" that is constantly being pointed to as requiring freedom, security, and justice -- and who is actually getting it?
The genocide in Guatemala -- which the U.S. government actively supported for decades -- killed 200,000 Indigenous Mayans. I call that just *one example* of fascism. (BTW, some of the US officials who helped assist those atrocities are in power *again* under Bush.)
I, as a strict property rights supporter, strongly believe it is the employer's right to set whatever standards they want (even including outright prejudice of any kind)
Is it because of this bozo?
(I'm surprised the Slashdot community let that comment slide. From what I've seen recently, this is becoming an increasingly reactionary place.)
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious: are there any cosmologists/physicists theorizing about anti-dark-matter? (or "dark anti-matter"?)
How, pray tell, will this ever come about?
(Religion is here to stay.)
I simply described some of the things *Flash* can do -- b/c so many people here just don't know. (...Among the things I didn't mention, you can create MAC/PC desktop apps, using the same codebase.)
What you are describing is what can *maybe* be done in a couple dozen different browsers (+ versions), in dozens of different ways.
e.g.: How about older versions of Safari? No native XML support. Poor JavaScript performance. It does, however, run Flash.
See?
* The semantic web relies on XML.
* The Flash Player can read and parse XML.
* A Flash SWF can be embedded in a plain-vanilla web page.
You can parse & extract info from both the web page, and XML date source being fed to your SWF. Where's the problem?
> You have a presentation format that wraps up presentation, scripting and content into one binary bundle that couples everything together so tightly it's impossible to decompose.
This is simply false.
Both capabilities exist at *run time* -- and I'm not bothering w/ describing to you how to manage code files and classes in the IDE.
Flash is weak at rendering text -- it does not rely on the OS. ...But that is a tradeoff so that you can bundle custom fonts w/ your SWF, and have them display consistently across browsers and platforms, w/ precise layout and animation possibilities.
Agreed.
...while you can crop and mask that video with an irregular shape.
And many people here seem unaware that you can composite images and text on top of that video.
In other words, you can dynamically place content from multiple data sources -- possibly unique for each user -- on top of, or adjacent to, that video. (data loaded via HTTP at run-time, in the Flash player.)
OTOH, the fewer people that understand this, the more marketable my skillz will be.
This interview on Wired is pretty informative:
1 558-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/software/0,7
-- talks about plans for supporting FP 9 on Linux, and 64-bit architectures.
I am a lowly slash-tard -- as are many posters in this thread.
;)
I'm just not a geek.
Obviously, somebodies like you got offended by the title of my *very informative* post -- and modded it "Flamebait." Shame.
It behaves consistently in a given player version (w/ excellent backwards compatibility), across all platforms to which it has been ported.
Flash player 7 or better is on what -- 95% of all web-connected machines in the U.S.? Not to mention, versions of the Flash Player on some mobile devices?
FP 8 was released around the time of the Adobe aquisition/debacle. FP 9 was only released very recently; Player Support is like ripples in pond: Many obscure edge cases have not been reached, yet. (I accept that some never will.)
That's a large set of features I listed -- I don't see any other as-capable, cost-competetive technology.
Flash should be used where one needs to use Flash, and HTML/JS/CSS (+XML+XSLT) likewise.
Flash behaves consistently cross-browser, cross/platform -- and most features cannot be disabled by the user. (compare that to a user being able to turn off JS, or Java -- something often mandated in a corporate environment.) It's either "all on" or "all off." (w/ a few minor exceptions, eg: local storage and camera/mic access.)
Flash has a large install base. It's arguably the most widely available platform for delivering media-rich "applications" over the web.
Flash does not rely on anywhere near the number of kludges and workarounds necessary to replicate similar features -- where possible -- in different browsers and browser *versions.* (Unlike various browser technologies, supported features are more stable across updates of the Flash Player.)
Not to sound like I work for MM/Adobe, but, here's what the Flash Player can do at *run time*:
How do I mod this boy up???!!!
How about: "Revert to a state more like that which existed on Earth a billion years ago." And: "Primitive micro-organisms are supplanting more complex life forms in the world's oceans." (Yes, the terms "primitive" and "complex" apply.) There, fixed it for you. Now, can all you geeks stop focusing on the terminology -- and address the real, underlying issues at hand?
err... perspective!
Think: *prespective*!
Imagine two people, walking a hundered meters apart, on the horizon, seen though a powerful telephoto lense ten miles away.
If their positions form a line pointing at the telescope, then they could appear to be nearly the same size, like they were right "next" to each other.
At a distance of 400 light years, the planet that is "behind" should actually be rendered *larger.* (if one is not nearly, directly behind the other, then there is a problem. OTOH, there is *some* perspective where that view could be valid.)
The disks should be rendered as more "flat," I'll give you that.
1.) What do you think of XSLT?
2.) Would it be crazy to have CSS incorporate data selection and assembly? (using something like XPath -- alowing more complete segration of data and formatting.)
John Poindexter
I was always astounded at the gall that these Republican scum had when the appointed him to head this powerful agency/initiative.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Time and again, the side that the U.S. supported was far more violent. Not to mention -- we shouldn't be intervening to decide other peoples' affairs, inthe first place.
The U.S. staged a Coup d'Etat of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala in 1954. A civil war and genocide ensued. Chile? El Salvador? Brazil?
It was Republican administrations that mostly initiated and supported these types of viscious, anti-democratic, and unprovoked interventions. The Dems occasionally did, too -- but it was mostly the GOP.
We should revisit this history. Where you stand is an indicator of your basic humanity.
> Not sure why you got labelled a troll.
Maybe they're doing more than just "watching," now.
(without transparency and openness -- who's to say?)
Remember who these people are:
In the 80's, many of the folks in the current Bush Administration were defending right-wing, paramilitary death squads in Latin America.
Not exactly a strong track record of defending democracy.
illegal and immoral:
The wiretapping is illegal.
Not using the FISA courts is illegal.
Blowing a CIA operative's cover is illegal.
Taking bribes from Big Oil and other corporations? illegal.
Stealing elections via a corrupt system? I guess that's just immoral.
Irony.
I'm using the same rhetorical style they've shamelessly applied for the last 5 years.
It's about time we recognize who the phone-tappers, surveillance-freaks, torture-defenders, and black-box voting stooges really are:
They are a threat to Americans, our way of life, and our democracy.
They are a national security threat.
So are their defenders.
The leakers are mostly pointing out *illegal acts* that are being carried out by our government. Don't we live in a democracy?
The sad fact is that the current adminiistration is often simply trying to hide their illegal/immoral acts by labeling them as "classified."
I would argue that these people who who say they are "defending" America -- have actually helped kill more Americans than the attacks on 9/11.
Think: disaster planning and relief, health care, and more generally: economic policies that affect any number of "quality of life" or even just "life" issues impacting a majority of Americans.
They have carried out many policies (in lieu of known, better alternatives) that had predictable results ahead of time; therefore, their negligence is willful and "deliberate," and not "accidental."
Who is the "we" that is constantly being pointed to as requiring freedom, security, and justice -- and who is actually getting it?
The genocide in Guatemala -- which the U.S. government actively supported for decades -- killed 200,000 Indigenous Mayans. I call that just *one example* of fascism. (BTW, some of the US officials who helped assist those atrocities are in power *again* under Bush.)
The U.S. also helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. That 1953 coup d'Etat set in motion a whole chain of events. It is likely that if that coup had not occured, those fanatical mullahs that you speak of would not be in control there right now.
I, as a strict property rights supporter, strongly believe it is the employer's right to set whatever standards they want (even including outright prejudice of any kind)
Is it because of this bozo?
(I'm surprised the Slashdot community let that comment slide. From what I've seen recently, this is becoming an increasingly reactionary place.)