By emulating Flash Player 11.2 for Linux in a PC emulator perhaps?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Probably because partner videos and claimed videos tend to use Flash even on PCs set to use HTML5.

Without Flash, what's the preferred way to deploy vector animations of the sort seen on Homestar Runner, Weebl's Stuff, Newgrounds, Dagobah, and Albino Blacksheep, without bloating them by a factor of 10 by rendering them to WebM?

That depends. Do you live in a country where Google's Music Key service is available?

Slashdot uses HTTPS for subscribers.

As for non-subscribers: Using HTTP advertisements in an HTTPS page won't work due to browsers' mixed content policy. This means Slashdot's HTTPS support is unlikely to be extended to non-subscribers until more major ad networks support HTTPS.

There'd be precedent for that in the European Union. England had a law in effect from 1571 through 1597 to make failure to wear a British-made wool cap in public a crime.

I was under the impression that even automakers had a statute of limitations for product defects. Or would someone have grounds to sue Ford over a defect in the Model T?

Because most users think they need to be online just to read web documents, certain cellular companies in the US are raking in beaucoup bucks. Time is money, but I'd rather spend four hours of my time once and then not have to spend it again the rest of the year rather than waste $400 a year on a data plan.

I never tried looking for it. I just tried five minutes ago, but it turns out that a randomly chosen article from Cracked.com doesn't appear to contain the word "print" at all. I guess what my homemade reader does is prepare (and cache) a printable version of new articles. I'm also aware of other sites such as Ars Technica that charge per year for access to printable versions.

I expressed my dissatisfaction with the site's lazy loading practice on the site's forum. But despite my best attempt at being thorough and polite, I got modded down.

My point is that if you don't buy any Ubisoft products, then there's no way for you to get F'd by Ubisoft's policy. It's not like Ubisoft is a platform gatekeeper or anything.