No assumptions? Yeah, right, you only assume that all browser plugins are as insecure as flash is.
Anyone who makes an assumption that dumb is an idiot -- statement of fact, not a blanket statement
Just because Flash is a plugin & insecure, that doesn't make all plugins insecure. You'd have to be really stupid to make that assumption but you seem dumb enough...
Clearly, both reading comprehension & web security are too complicated for you.
Let me use small words to make it easier for you:
Both Flash plus their flash plugin & a browser plugin need to be installed. A plugin would add no vulnerabilities. Adding Flash to a machine does.
I leave you to your browser with 10 toolbars, unexplained slowdowns & redirects to porn sites.
Too bad you don't understand that the browser cannot run it if flash is not installed as a plugin on the user's browser (which it isn't if the person behind the browser has a clue & doesn't NEED it.
For this to be widely deployed, people would have to care enough to install it, yet clearly that is not the case for over 99% of the people browsing the web. For the remaining people with a clue (aka the security conscious), a browser plugin (akin to Browser Patrol in Firefox) would be amply sufficient.
Snort, great solution there. Flash is going down the tubes and is installed on fewer and fewer systems -- starting with people who refuse the unnecessary security hassle it has become.
If you want to create a browser plugin for the security conscious, you don't do in an environment that has been proven to be insecure time after time. If possible, you create it in in an environment that will continue to exist in a few years when even Chrome abandons it.
As to how many people are using TFA's plugin, people using obsolete browser versions (aka your widely deployed tech) are NOT the target audience! The target is people using plugins like certificate patrol to avoid blindly accepting any/all certificate changes presented to their browser.
I have other things to do than write browser plugins, thanks. You seem to to have some experience in flash development. Any chance you are a flash dev that has been seeing less work and are just knee-jerking in reaction to my pointing out that Flash is insecure?
If TFA had presented a browser add-on instead of a flash plugin the clueless might have been whining about "what about MY browser", but at least it would be usable by people with at least half a clue.
Do those alternatives to Flash allow the developer to enable socket functionalities not natively present in current browsers"?
Are low level socket functions beyond what is available to Browser plug-ins absolutely necessary to perform the function? I don't know, which was pretty much the point of my post.
Flash has had too many security breaches & just isn't useful enough for me to justify it's continued existence on my main browsers.
When I need flash for a few select sites I use Chrome & for the rest I use a windows VM that is regularly wiped back to a clean config using snapshots.
Too bad they didn't implement their validation tool as a normal browser plugin (or a suite of such for FF/Chrome/Safari/IE).
Transport for London has already determined that Uber vehicles do not have an installed meter which kicks the crutch right out from under your argument.
Now what is happening is that the london cabs are attempting to pressure Transport for London and/or Parliament into reversing themselves or into creating a new law that will outlaw Uber.
So again I ask you: What is this extra-legal right that Black cab drivers have that justifies their excluding competition?
Best possible service is it? So, London cabs will be picking me up in an aircar and whisking me from spot to spot, all the while shining my shoes & offering me a complementary beverage? No? Well then it isn't the best possible service.
None of which addresses my point that London cabbies cannot justify the exclusion of a competing service for illegal reasons either.
Snort, I live in Paris & have heard french snobs use that exact argument to say attempt to justify refusing an operating license to a MacDo*. Can't let the plebes get what they want you know...
* As they are called here.
Nothing in your post justifies the Black cabs exclusion of a competing service for illegal reasons.
If people judge that the cabbies added value (knowledge of road closures, etc) suits them, they will use them. If people judge that Uber's added value (lower prices) suits them, they will use Uber.
What is this extra-legal right that Black cab drivers have that justifies their excluding competition?
The objective is reusable launchers (or at least 1st stages). Space-X has a 1st stage that was designed to have the margins necessary for fly back & that is gradually implementing this through tests.
It's not an apple/oranges problem. Space-X has apples (a proven launcher) & is working on making applesauce (1st stage fly back).
If a showstopper becomes evident, F9R won't become a commercial reality, but between Grasshopper's successes & the soft splashdown achieved on the last F9 flight, I'm nowhere near as pessimistic you are.
Naysayers have said:
Merlin can't be throttled low enough to make soft landings a possibility
Merlin can't be restarted in the flight regimes necessary
Merlin/Falcon don't have the performance margin necessary for both launching the second stage & flying back
Stability issues will prevent soft landings
The last flight proved that none of these are obligatory showstoppers. What else is there?
Perhaps you can explain why the static testing Space-X has performed isn't applicable?
Had I said it wasn't applicable, you'd have a point. But the applicability of the static testing is sharply limited because the test stand isn't flight - the environments are radically different.
You have performed tests that show that the applicability of Space-X's static tests is sharply limited? Please, Derek I'm not being an ass. Why are you right & the engineers that conceived, manufactured & flew Falcon & Merlin wrong?
So why are you so pessimistic?
Because I've studied and am actually familiar with the engineering, issues, and challenges.
And yet Space-X's engineers who are also somewhat familiar with the engineering, issues, and challenges and are currently flying hardware to validate their position do not share your pessimism.
I don't presume anything. I look at the traditional launcher companies who refused to re-examine their processes in order to diminish launch costs & then at Space-X.
Space-X has a launcher & a capsule with proven abilities for a cost far below that which "engineers, those working in the industry" were able to do. Indeed, if you'll take off your blinkers & look at the people working for Space-X, you'll notice that they are also "engineers, those working in the industry".
Now between "engineers, those working in the industry" that have been incapable of reducing launch costs & Space-X's "engineers, those working in the industry" who have done so, repeatedly, I believe the latter.
Note that I wasn't the one saying that Space-X would fail because they don't farm out Falcon construction to 40+ congressional districts. I was the one saying that Space-X refused to play this pork game through vertical integration which is a large part in why Falcon-9 is cheaper than anything "Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE, et al" can propose for a similar payload. By being significantly cheaper, Space-X doesn't need the support other launchers have.
... with the limited number of launches to date, it's far too early to be reasonably analyze if they've truly been successful.
Perhaps you can explain why the static testing Space-X has performed isn't applicable? Yes, some unforeseen problems like the rotation issue are bound to appear, but Merlin HAS been exhaustively tested in the durations Space-X has announced ther hope to achieve for the 9R. So why are you so pessimistic?
If all else fails, lower your standards.
