Apart from iOS (which was a business decision by SJ, not a technical one), there are very few browsers that don't implement flash (users may choose not to, but that is a different matter).
If there is a security glitch in flash it is noticed and gets fixed. If there is a security glitch in JS, who knows which browsers will be fixed and when?
It is fairly obvious that you don't remember the bad old days of IE5.5 on Windows 98. There were really only 2 browsers worth speaking about then, Netscape and IE. They had massive security glitches (particularly IE) and implementing HTML for the different browsers was a massive headache and took up a good 60-70% development time (and the main problems were making IE5 and 6 look the same).
I would rather have one way of implementing things that can be fixed at one source rather than loads of different implementations.
Most browser apps should store store data locally to support offline browsing in case the user goes out of range of the network. If it doesn't then that is bad programming.
HTML5 will be like every other HTML spec. Poorly implemented across the board. "Hacks" all over the place for different browsers.
Flash overcame all this a long time ago. With Flex, it has a fully working development environment that will run on all browsers and all OS's and where, with not much more than the click a checkbox you can compile your app for desktop ot browser.
It is also relatively secure (compare it to Java browser plugins, for instance).
It's not bad coding. Most browser apps I have been involved in writing involve local storage for some data, rather than going back and forth to the DB every time the user needs something. Certainly there should be a check to see if it is set to zero and then a message saying, "How do you expect any app to work without local storage, dolt?".
Sometimes client side storage is needed when writing an online app. (e.g. if the user goes out of range of a wireless network). Google gears is an excellent example of this.
Capitalism never ceases to amaze me in it's creativity. Someone could buy a second-hand semi-smart phone for a 3rd of that price but because they cant/wont learn some basic features like clicking on an icon they get charged half the price of an iPhone for what is, essentially, a keypad.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF? Vulvans? Wow! I assume they must be all female and use cloning as there means of reproduction.
I for one welcome our new Vulvan overlords!
Antibiotic?
<sarcasm> :-)
those Intellectual Vultire Overlords
</sarcasm>
There, sorted that for you!
I suppose this must have come about since the catholic church allowed male prostitutes to wear condoms.
Yeah, coz "Foobar of Borg" is a totally trace-able name of course!
HTML + JS runs in more OSes and browsers.
Apart from iOS (which was a business decision by SJ, not a technical one), there are very few browsers that don't implement flash (users may choose not to, but that is a different matter).
If there is a security glitch in flash it is noticed and gets fixed. If there is a security glitch in JS, who knows which browsers will be fixed and when?
It is fairly obvious that you don't remember the bad old days of IE5.5 on Windows 98. There were really only 2 browsers worth speaking about then, Netscape and IE. They had massive security glitches (particularly IE) and implementing HTML for the different browsers was a massive headache and took up a good 60-70% development time (and the main problems were making IE5 and 6 look the same).
I would rather have one way of implementing things that can be fixed at one source rather than loads of different implementations.
Most browser apps should store store data locally to support offline browsing in case the user goes out of range of the network. If it doesn't then that is bad programming.
Another post referencing an article from 2007!? I saw this guy's video on TED ages ago!
Which is interesting as anything that is said on slashdot AND is about flash AND is true would probably fit in a tweet.
HTML5 will be like every other HTML spec. Poorly implemented across the board. "Hacks" all over the place for different browsers. Flash overcame all this a long time ago. With Flex, it has a fully working development environment that will run on all browsers and all OS's and where, with not much more than the click a checkbox you can compile your app for desktop ot browser. It is also relatively secure (compare it to Java browser plugins, for instance).
Java applets, are you serious? Give me flash any day. And definitely not HTML5
It's not bad coding. Most browser apps I have been involved in writing involve local storage for some data, rather than going back and forth to the DB every time the user needs something. Certainly there should be a check to see if it is set to zero and then a message saying, "How do you expect any app to work without local storage, dolt?".
Sometimes client side storage is needed when writing an online app. (e.g. if the user goes out of range of a wireless network). Google gears is an excellent example of this.
Twitter was successfully used to find an outbreak of bird flu in China, 3 months b4 the Chinese government admitted there was a problem.
" ... official should also be punished ... "
What crime did the official commit?
Oh well, they weren't quick enough!
Researchers at Stanford imaged my brain so quickly that they got me to make this first post remotely.
Capitalism never ceases to amaze me in it's creativity. Someone could buy a second-hand semi-smart phone for a 3rd of that price but because they cant/wont learn some basic features like clicking on an icon they get charged half the price of an iPhone for what is, essentially, a keypad.
Perhaps, but we can learn a lot about readability in general from this kind of research.
I would but I suspect it says "Paul is Dead" at one point and "Love Satan" at another.
"your wierd"
Well you told me to write it. Anyway it should be "weird", not "wierd"
You are obviously not a regular Slashdot user. You talk sense. Don't worry, you'll learn!
Although I agree with your points. If Google had changed the app it would have to be re-submitted to Apple for approval again. Another 16 months wait?