Otherwise, how are we supposed to show all the crappy Flash animations of the turn of the millenium to future generations?
By emulating Flash Player 11.2 for Linux in a PC emulator perhaps?
when the user clicks the url, the browser opens the appropriate application for the urltype.
Which means "the appropriate application for the urltype" needs to exist for the user's platform. Not everyone wants to have to make 14 different apps for 14 different platforms, not to mention that several platforms require a long and involved developer pre-approval process. For example, the Flash Lite player in Internet Channel was the only publicly available game development environment for Wii before that console was cracked.
Animated SVG for the simpler stuff, HTML5 canvas with JavaScript for more complicated animations.
So what tools would you recommend for building these without, say, having to type all the (x, y) coordinates into a script file? I haven't seen any animation stuff in Inkscape, unless there was some recent huge update of which I'm not aware.
Flash doesn't work particularly well on touch screens.
Neither does HTML5 if you abuse onmouseover. The lack of hover is completely orthogonal to the SWF vs. HTML debate.
I go to get.webgl.org using Firefox 35.0.1 on a laptop with an Intel IGP and all I get is "Hmm. While your browser seems to support WebGL, it is disabled or unavailable. If possible, please ensure that you are running the latest drivers for your video card." Badgers, on the other hand, still plays perfectly.
Still, there's no reason you can't do stuff like that on better, more secure platforms.
In theory, I agree. But in practice, which "better, more secure platforms" for authoring and presenting vector animation on the web would you recommend? And how should we convince contributors to the aforementioned sites to remake their works using the new tech?
"Forcing" in what way? For me, only recently did Firefox start allowing the HTML5 player for videos that roll ads.
Really? A boiled peanut is a Boiled. Peanut. (still in the shell. vs. the common tin can of shelled, roasted crap from Planters.)
We have a pretty good idea; trees are still trees, and most paper today is acid-free (unlike the paper made from the late 1800s up until about 1980), so it doesn't degrade too badly. But if you're really concerned, buy certified 100% cotton, acid-free paper.
At more than 8 cents per gigabyte, archival DVDs are horribly expensive. You could cycle your backups across three hard drives for about the same amount of money, and then you have three backups instead of one.
Not to mention... have you ever tried backing up your 4 TB hard drive onto a spindle of 1,000 DVDs? Have you ever seen a spindle of 1,000 DVDs? It's slightly taller than an average person. Yes, if you don't have much data, you can do what you're proposing, but....
Hard drives are really the only viable backup medium unless you have a big enough collection of data for tape drives to make sense—maybe Blu-Ray, but only if you don't have more than about a 100-disc spindle worth of data (2.5 or 5 TB) to back up (and really, most people lose interest at more like ten or fifteen discs).
a) sizeof(some pointer) will not tell you the size of what it points to
b) the error here is allocating space for 3 things and putting 4 in it. It doesn't matter what function you call if you tell it to copy sizeof(void *) too much.
The error is a simple mistake due to unnecessarily complex code.
... until their metasploit code is published and everyone can see how to use this error. All it takes is one example; ONE person figures out how to trigger shellcode, and it's game over. No matter how complex the situation, an exploit is an exploit. It doesn't matter if it takes 87 steps to set off a nuke, if you know those steps and complete them - *boom*.
I think the point was that after you clone your backup drive to a new one, you can reuse the drive to replace or expand your main system drive, whereas once you burn an optical disc, "reburning" means throwing away the old plastic (or keeping an extra copy around). This effectively makes optical media a lot more expensive than magnetic media.
Either you write very little code, very simple code, or no one is closely inspecting your code. People make mistakes - period.
This glibc error was a simple mistake... count 3 things, put 4 in there. But yes, if their code weren't in such a f'ing complicated mess (have these fools never head of stuct) this mistake would be harder to make.
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
