I'm still not exactly clear on the vulnerability itself, all I'm reading is "If I get a swf on your server, when it's executed in the browser it will have originated form that server" What exactly is the vulnerability there? Isn't this how it's supposed to work? Don't you want scripts executing on the domain they load from? From the article "If I can get a Flash object onto your server, I can execute scripts in the context of your domain. This is a frighteningly Bad Thing." Is he suggesting Flash should execute in a black hole or something like that? That would make no sense.

Which is why you should start investing in nuclear now, we might not be able to scale up solar fast enough in 20 years to meet the drought, but we can scale up nuclear energy that fast. Nuclear may also not last forever, but if we could get to 50/50 split nuclear/solar, we'd be in good shape.

"Do you have any idea what it does for the US to have so many people only capable of filling basic manufacturing jobs?" Create self sustainability? Seriously, the only way countries who hand out free university educations get by is through massive immigration to grease the wheels of their economy, do you think that's a good solution?

Canvas is just svg all over again. Remember when SVG was going to kill animations in flash because it was *technically* possible to achieve the same thing? Canvas is no different. Having a technical solution is not the same thing as a workable solution.

Flex. The Flash platform is split into 3 camps right now, Video, Entertainment, and application development. HTML5 really only threatens the video category, but HTML5 doesn't offer the solutions needed to accomplish the fun promotional websites like you see for video game or movie websites, nor does it offer the framework and debugging support needed for rich application development like Flex. Building high quality and reliable applications in DOM and javascript only can be a torturous proposition.

Here's the thing I hate about sci-fi plots. Humans have the ability to fly half way across the galaxy, can engineer biological hybrids, can link those hybrids to a humans mind, but the simple act of reconnecting a spinal cord back together in order to cure paralysis is still beyond their reach?

How can they possibly write this law in a way that will clearly delineate what a legal download is from an illegal download? Is it the responsibility of the consumer to know whether or not the distributor has acquired the legal rights to allow you to download a file in the first place. Does paying for something automatically indemnify you from charges of illegal downloading if you're not sure of the legality? If netflix offers a promotion to allow me to watch 3 movies for free without signing up for their service, is that legal? What about a site that streams the movie to me, inserts commercials, but doesn't have a license with the movie studios. Am I charged for illegal downloading or are they charged with illegal distribution, or both? What exactly is an illegal download when the distributor (even a pirate distributor) is willfully giving you content without charging for it?

Dear engineering community, that's all I've ever wanted from you in life, please make it happen.

I agree, myself and all of my coworkers work on macbook pros right now, almost all of us have had to change the battery out once (i was getting 30 mins off the plug) and we can do this on our own, with only a moments downtime to get it taken care of. There's no way in hell our IT guy is going to want to take all of our laptops to the genius bar everytime someone needs a new battery.

So you fault someone for providing an opinion without having direct experience with it, and in the same sentence turn around and fault Adobe for something you "heard through a friend" Classy.

In a round-about-way petroleum is an "electricity storage technology" just like hydrogen, lithium, etc... Any chemical process that produces electricity is a battery. It just so happens that its currently more efficient to burn petroleum to do mechanical work directly then to first convert it into electricity. I'm not sure if non-consumable batteries (lithium/super capacitors) will ever be able to compete with biologically derived fuels. This chart is a good place to start for more info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

All those demos use -webkit specific css features. So now we're going to the late 90's mishmash of each browser vendor creating their own extensions for use in html? I don't see anything to applaud here.

Wrong, flash had an already sustainable community and place on the web before youtube. Youtube and other video sites were just another expression of the flash platform as a whole. HTML5 won't kill flash because javascript isn't powerful enough, or at least the apis exposed with javascript aren't powerful enough to implement some of the trickier solutions being created in flash. For video, flash was the only answer at the time because no one wanted to wait for real/window media/quicktime to implement the features that publishers thought they deserved. On flash they could make what they wanted. That's the difference between a platform and a final product, and its the reason flash will always have a place on the web. Removing flash from the online landscape is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.