swf2h5 -o crap.html5 oldcrap.swf
Where'd you find that? Google swf2h5 didn't give anything relevant.
swf2h5 -o crap.html5 oldcrap.swf
Where'd you find that? Google swf2h5 didn't give anything relevant.
Only the author of an SWF has the clear legal right to use Sothink SWF Decompiler or Swiffy. That's why I mentioned "contacting authors".
At that point, it just becomes a decision by the user of whether they're willing to pirate an older version of Creative Suite, or download a free HTML5 development app. Legal-free beats pirate-free any day, so that's one area where HTML5 could still catch up.
Agreed in principle. But when is it likely to catch up? Which "free HTML5 development app" is comparable in features and polish to a preowned copy of Flash CS or even Flash MX? "Use a text editor" has no timeline.
When even the authors don't care enough to port their stuff to HTML5 you can be confident that yours is a niche concern.
Are you implying that the public should have honored Franz Kafka's request to burn his manuscripts after his death? Because destroying a work once "the authors don't care enough" about it anymore is similar.
You might as well be arguing that the video game industry should still develop for the Nintendo Entertainment System.
I contributed two games and the menu to this NES collaboration released in 2015.
Proprietary platforms are always at risk of being ended by the proprietor
Prior to widespread support for <canvas> and <audio>, for what non-proprietary platform should these authors have created these vector animations instead of Flash Player?
And how many Flash productions present that ability to the user?
I have no resources to perform an exact count.
And what about Xbox 360, PS3, Xbox One and PS4? They are the most popular consoles currently.
PC is more popular than those put together. Besides, PS3's browser supports at least some version of Flash Player since 2.5. I'll grant that Xbox 360, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4 would need the author to convert the Flash to HTML5.
This is why so much poor software exists in the world.
I can only imagine what nightmare code is being generated by such efforts.
Yes, anyone can code, just as anyone can build a house. Whether or not the house collapses immediately, whether it has any real value, or by any other measure still depends on the skill of the builder, just as in software.
Garbage in -> Garbage out,
applies to the code as well as the data.
honestly, i can say that if it gets the desired results, who cares. it's going to be maintainable by that person, because they were the ones that wrote it. now, if this was a team effort, however, that would be a completely different matter. if there was a requirement to have a maintenance contract in place, for the long-term success of the code and the project, that would be, again, an entirely different matter.
i *do* actually successfully use the technique that the author uses - i have been using it successfully for over 30 years. however, during that time, i have added "unit tests", source code revision control, project management, documentation, proper comments, proper code structure, coding standards and many many more things which make a successfully *maintainable* project.
whilst such things are most likely entirely missing from the projects that this individual is tackling, the projects that this individual is tackling are also likely to be ones that *don't need* such techniques.
in essence: none of that de-legitimises the *technique* of "programming by random research". it's a legitimate technique that, i can tell you right now, saves a vast amount of time. understanding comes *later* (if indeed it is needed at all), usually by a process of "knowledge inference". to be able to switch off "disbelief" and "judgement" is something that i strongly recommend that you learn to do. if you've been trained as a software engineer, adding "programming by random research" to your arsenal of techniques will make you much more effective.
...when you need to google the hex representation of 'red'. *much* better to understand the encoding, and it certainly isn't hard or requires tricky math. it's literally RRGGBB
you are completely and utterly missing the point, by a long, long margin, and have made a severe judgement error. the assumption that you have made is to correlate "understanding" with "successful results".
believe it or not, the two are *not* causally linked. for a successful counter-example, you need only look at genetic algorithms and at evolution itself.
did you know that human DNA contains a representation of micro-code, as well as a factory which can execute assembly-level-like "instructions"? i'm not talking about CGAT, i'm talking about a level above that. to ask how on earth did such a thing "evolve" is entirely missing the point. it did, it has, it works, and who cares? it's clearly working, otherwise we would not be here - on this site - to be able to say "what a complete load of tosh i am writing"!
what this person has done is to use their creative intelligence as well as something called "inference". they've *inferred* that if enough google queries of "what is hex HTML for red" come up with a particular number and it's always the same number in each result, then surprise-surprise it's pretty much 100% likely that that's the correct answer.
*later on* they might go "hmmm, that's interesting, when i search for "red" it comes up with FFnnnn, when i search for "green" it comes up with nnFFnn" and then they might actually gain the understanding that you INCORRECTLY believe is NECESSARY to achieve successful results.
but please for goodness sake don't make the mistake of assuming that understanding is *required* to achieve successful results: it most certainly is not.
Programming -- I don't think that word means what she think it means.
actually... i believe it's you who doesn't understand what programming is. programming is about "achieving results". the results - by virtue of their success - have absolutely NOTHING to do with the method by which those results are achieved. this is provable by either (a) unit tests or (b) a system test.
so if this person has found an unorthodox and successful way to do programming (which, by the way, is *exactly* how i do pretty much all of the programming i've ever done, including in programming languages that i've never learned before), then *so what*??
just because *you* memorise all the APIs, go through all the books, go through all the tutorials, go through all the reference material and then re-create pretty much everything that's ever been invented from scratch because otherwise you would not feel "confident" that it would "work", does NOT mean that there isn't an easier way.
there are actually two different types of intelligence:
(a) applied (logical) intelligence. this is usually linear and single-step.
(b) random (chaotic) intelligence. this is usually trial-and-error and is often parallelisable (evolution, bees, ants and other creatures)
an extreme variant of (b) is actually *programmable*. it's called "genetic algorithms".
personally i find that method (a) is incredibly laborious and slow, whereas method (b) is, if you write good enough unit tests and spend a significant amount of time reducing the "testing" loop, you get results very very quickly. genetics - darwin selection - is a very very good example. we don't "understand" each iteration, but we can clearly and obviously see that the "results" are quite blindingly-obviously successful.
by applying the technique that the original article mentions, i've managed to teach myself actionscript in about 48 hours, and java was about the same amount of time. i knew *nothing* about the APIs nor the full details of *either* language... yet i was able to successfully write the necessary code for a project that was based on red5 server and a real-time flash application. it was up and running within a couple of weeks.
in short: to call the method described in the article as "nothing to do with programming whatsoever" is complete rubbish. it's a proven technique that gets results, and, you know what? the most critical insight of the article is that it's *not* people who are "good at maths" who are good at achieving results with this technique: it's people who are creative and who understand language.
The copyright treaties define a shorter minimum copyright term for sound recordings than for other kinds of works. In some countries, if a song is written and recorded in the same year, the copyright in the composition expires 50 years after the death of the last surviving songwriter, but the copyright in the sound recording expires far earlier: 50 years after publication. This means someone can lawfully make and sell copies of any pre-1965 musical recording in those countries for only the cost of a license to the composition.
The United States is one huge exception. It applies the same 95-year copyright term to recordings published in 1972 or later as it does to any other work made for hire published in the same year. It also applies state copyright to pre-1972 sound recording copyright, and state copyright isn't subject to the "for limited Times" wording of the copyright clause of its constitution. Federal law has set a date after which state copyright must expire, but that's in 2067 to give them the equivalent of one full federal copyright term after the introduction of federal sound recording copyright.
You do realize that a usb OTA television adapter can be had for 20 dollars or less right?
And how much for another computer in the living room to drive this adapter?
Anyhow, the problem that I have with sans-serif fonts is that they look childish.
That's what you see in books for children, when they are learning to read.
That's not what I remember seeing for the text in The Cat in the Hat and Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss. It looks like Times.
Was it familiar because Google is bringing its branding more in line with that of the Alphabet holding company that owns it?
Windows Media Center has been removed from Windows 10. Besides, I haven't seen anyone in my area willing to buy a PC to devote to OTA DVR duty.
Oh god.. it's another "HTML5 will have that soon" post. Give me a break.
I still run Cyberdog on my System 7 Quadra box. What options do I have?
Buy a modern Mac mini and see how many of the apps on your Quadra also run in Basilisk II.
Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.