nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Flash forum

PAPILLION

It would be interesting to se how many people would be interested in a forum for flash developers and designers. I know there are specific websites but it would be good to be able to knock heads with local developers and enthusiasts alike.

Somehwere where you can ask a basic question with out more experienced developers being condecending (sp?) and smart.

"Macromedia Flash is now one of the most widely used packages and is the first truely multifacetted product. It spans multiple genres from Advertising, animation and Games, to web site development and image and Presentation creation."

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dahamsta

The lack of Flash discussion on the Webmaster forum would seem to suggest that there isn't a demand for it.

adam

ecksor

This sort of stuff is starting to boggle me completely.

Adam, when you wanted to have a privacy board, you were told numerous times that you were more than welcome on the security board, and you "just didn't feel comfortable" about that, and similarly there was no real interest being demonstrated by the trekkies on the sci/fi board according to the mods there, and yet there's about 15 new threads within a day or two on there about "what colour would you paint your spaceship?"

Can someone explain this to me? Like, is star trek or privacy somehow less important or diluted if it's mixed in with cryptography/stargate (or whatever) ??

dahamsta

Fair point ecksor, but civil liberties is much more than security. Flash is either Webmaster or Art / Anim / Photo, period.

adam

Trebor

Originally posted by ecksor

Can someone explain this to me? Like, is star trek or privacy somehow less important or diluted if it's mixed in with cryptography/stargate (or whatever) ??

yes because as it is not a dedicated forum people will be wary about what to post as they don't want people telling them that "You shouldn't have posted that here" so if there is a dedicated forum then they will feel more comfortable in expressing their freakness

PAPILLION

ok, cool. I'll be able to post there and get some kind of decent response?

+ I gather from the lack of response to this thread that there arent to many people interested in it.

nuff said.:)

DeVore

How about we rename Webmaster to Webmaster / Flash to ensure people realise they can and should talk about Flash there too.

Flash is certainly big enough to deserve that much... Webmaster could do with a bump in traffic ...

DeV.

ecksor

Originally posted by dahamsta
civil liberties is much more than security

On that point, since you were looking for something that was oriented towards "electronic freedom" in particular we repeatedly claimed that we felt that it was on-topic, and all of the moderators were comfortable with that.

If you approach it from the point of view of "personal security", "professional ethics" or "legislature that affects secure operations", then any of the topics very comfortably fit under Security. Mind you, I suspect that you just have a different view of what is on-topic on the security board, and I'm curious to know what exactly you think that is.

Originally posted by PAPILLION
I gather from the lack of response to this thread that there arent to many people interested in it.

I'd imagine that there are plenty of people interested in flash, which isn't exactly the issue I have with this. I'm all for providing people with a forum to discuss whatever they want (as long as there aren't legal difficulties with it). It's just a bit niggling when we do provide facilities and they won't post there.

On that note, I'd suggest that you post some sort of interest check in the most relevant forum to get an idea of how many people are interested in flash. In your case that would probably mean the webmaster or art/anim/photo forums.

dahamsta

Originally posted by ecksor
Mind you, I suspect that you just have a different view of what is on-topic on the security board, and I'm curious to know what exactly you think that is.

There's a cynical undertone of i-told-you-so in your post ecksor, which I don't think particularly fair. Perhaps you're right, but I've always tended to draw a line between security and civil liberities. I've always viewed the term security as having to do with bugtraq and cracking and firewalling and the like; whereas I view freedom as having to do with speech and openness and enabling. I realise that in one sense one is the converse of the other - you can come at both from either side - but I find that this can confuse issues, particularly for Joe Public.

Another factor in my requesting a separate forum back then was that I get the impression that many people would be frightened off by the Security moniker, or more likely the hax0rs they visualise within. Plus, although copy protection on CD's could be viewed as a security issue (crypto/DRM), I tend to visualise it in my tiny brain more as a freedom issue (rights). That is, I don't think "the label has secured this CD" or "how do I crack this copy protection", I think "this is an encroachment of my fair-use right to copy".

So Security doesn't fit the bill for me, it's more of a Humanities matter. But it's not Humanities either. See? I think it's just a mindset thing ecksor, and I never meant to offend or dilute the scope of your board. We just think about security and freedom differently I reckon.

adam

dahamsta

Originally posted by DeVore
How about we rename Webmaster to Webmaster / Flash to ensure people realise they can and should talk about Flash there too.

Sounds good. Or alternatively it could go in the charters of both Webmaster (for web-based flash) and A/A/P (for multimedia flash). Either or.

EDIT: By the way, I meant to mention that Creative Ireland is another reason why there mightn't be the demand for it here. Most fingerpainters seem to gather there.

adam

ecksor

Originally posted by dahamsta
I've always viewed the term security as having to do with bugtraq and cracking and firewalling and the like;

A common (and terribly annoying) over-simplification.

As for being frightened by the 'Security' moniker, that point (and the fact that Security lives under Technology) was accepted at the time, and ideas for how to fix the image were solicited. In case we do decide to merge the two forums I invite you to get your thinking cap on, because we are interested in making sure that people have a place that they feel comfortable in discussing the issues you raise.

(for reference all of the relevant threads are linked from the FAQ on the security forum).

ecksor

Mind you, we're digressing here. I'm more interested in the general phenomenon than particular cases, although particular cases can obviously help to shed some light on things. Why were people not willing to post about star trek topics on sci/fi for example?

dahamsta

Originally posted by ecksor
A common (and terribly annoying) over-simplification.

Reading my comment as a full and frank overview of my perception of security is unreasonable ecksor, and your response is patronising. I don't doubt or challenge your qualifications as a security commentator, but you're calling my general understanding of the subject into question; and although you almost certainly know a hell of a lot more than me, I know a hell of a lot more than 99% of the population. I'm not a pundit, I genuinely try to understand technology issues, and security is a large part of that.

Just because your perceptions of the scope of security don't match with mine doesn't make you right. I already explained that I didn't mean offense, and that I wasn't trying to dilute the scope of the Security board. There's no reason to be so belligerent about it. (I might add that belligerence is one of the reasons security forums can be so forbidding to people. Hardcore linux forums are another example -- the only way to survive on ILUG is to brownnose or match fire with fire.)

adam

DeVore

I've thought about this and my feeble brain has come up with this:

Some people are kinda shy. Ok so you might think that there arent many round these parts but then how would we know

From what I can see how broad or narrow a forum is greatly affects its viability. Too broad and noone knows what to post there, too narrow and there arent enough topics to keep it rolling.

In the specific case of SCiFi and Trek... it may be that the trekkers considered it impolite (if you will) to invade and flood. Or perhaps they were too shy to start to discuss the topic in great detail in a generic forum.
(You might feel a little weird starting 2-3 distinct threads on a the minutiae of MP5 encoding on a Technology forum... fearing a "whats with all MP5 threads?!" rebuke.)

Part of the problem is that people dont read the charters where its made clear that it IS on topic. If we would like it to be a big part of the forum then altering the name of the forum is a strong statement to support that.

DeV.

ecksor

dahamsta,

I claim that "I've always viewed the term security as having to do with bugtraq and cracking and firewalling and the like;" is "A common (and terribly annoying) over-simplification."

I stand by that, and you even seem to agree with that judging by your followup post!! I can't comment on what you think, only on what you post.

And your reason for making the simplification is that it is how 99% of the population see things, if I understand correctly. Isn't the main problem with privacy and electronic freedom issues that 99% of the population has misconceptions and are unaware of the issues? Yet it seems to me that you're advocating a course which continues to mislead. That's an inconsistent line of thinking in my view.

I'm not a pundit, I genuinely try to understand technology issues, and security is a large part of that.

Try to think of security as something that sometimes involves technology and we'll be closer to being on the same page. We don't get threads about how to properly secure a building or protect against a mugging, but I couldn't and wouldn't call it off-topic. Datacentres contain computers, and people carry laptops/PDAs after all, but that isn't quite what I'm getting at.

A better example of what I mean is that many organisations store people's personal information electronically in databases and they mis-manage that by leaving it open to stealing or they share/sell it. But similarly many organisations (hospitals come to mind) leave paper based information lying around where a punter can just pick it up and read it. As far as I'm concerned, the issue here is mis-management of personal information, and the technology or lack of is a secondary detail. Not that discussion of the details is off-topic, it just isn't the be-all and end-all of the matter.

As I said, I accept the image problem, and I also accept what the common perception is, but I'm still open to suggestions on how to fix that.

DeVore's point about the lack of a clear charter is probably relevant here.

PAPILLION

Originally posted by dahamsta
Most fingerpainters seem to gather there.

adam

*ahem*

i use my thumbs

dahamsta

Tom, I realise you've changed the webmaster board already, but I was thinking that "Web Development" might be a good title for it. It leaves lots of scope for diverse topics, and should be perceived as including things like Flash and coding too. Besides, nobody in their right mind calls themselves a webmaster any more.

Just a suggestion.

adam

dahamsta

I claim that "I've always viewed the term security as having to do with bugtraq and cracking and firewalling and the like;" is "A common (and terribly annoying) over-simplification." I stand by that, and you even seem to agree with that judging by your followup post!! I can't comment on what you think, only on what you post.

I do agree with it for the majority of the population, but I genuinely thought you were personalising this. Perhaps the problem is that we don't bump into each other more often on Boards. If we did, you would likely know better than to interpret my posts this literally. That said:

It would have been more accurate for me to say that I view those elements as the core of "security"; that although freedom and privacy issues are invariably interlinked with security, I quite often view them as completely different subjects. In other words, again, I think this is a perception thing: in these sort of topics, you'll tend to look for the security angle, since that's your field; whereas I'll tend to look for the civil liberties angle, because I've been doing this kind of thing for a while.

Take CCTV as an example. Security commentators will likely think of this from the security angle, they'll analyse whether it will be effective for policing and personal security, whether it is secure from outside abuse, etc. Libertarians will analyse how how it impacts on their privacy, and whether they're willing to accept what some perceive as nannying. Both perspectives are valid, and there will be crossover, but there is still a radical difference between the two, and quite often ne'er the twain can meet. I suppose this might be because both groups tend to be hardheaded.

And your reason for making the simplification is that it is how 99% of the population see things, if I understand correctly. Isn't the main problem with privacy and electronic freedom issues that 99% of the population has misconceptions and are unaware of the issues?

I wasn't pandering to the majority, because I'm having a conversation with you here, not the majority. I made the simplification because I view those elements as the /core/ of security issues. I don't deny for a second that freedom and liberty issues have a security element 99% of the time, and vice versa, but we tend to view these things by topical majority. For example, Pat Byrne will see data retention as primarily a security issue, and civil liberties will be almost incidental; libertarians will view it as a liberties issue, and security as almost incidental.

You can view this as self-contradictory, however I don't deny that there's an imperative to make the crossover; to try and understand opposing views and integrate them into your judgement and actions. I'm merely trying to demonstrate the radically different views people can have, and how they're often at odds - even incompatible - with each other. In this particular case, we're arguing for consultation, but both the Garda and libertarians are still going to consult with each other privately, in their own forums.

Yet it seems to me that you're advocating a course which continues to mislead. That's an inconsistent line of thinking in my view.

I don't think that this is a reasonable interpretation of my comments ecksor. You said earlier that you can't comment on what I think, only on what I post, but that's pretty much what you're doing here. You're second-guessing and reading between the lines. I don't write between them, so if I'm unclear, ask.

Try to think of security as something that sometimes involves technology and we'll be closer to being on the same page.

Again, I think that this is as a result of out not meeting much around Boards. I very rarely think of security as anything /other/ than something that involves technology. If technology isn't involved up-front, I'm usually trying to figure out a way to /get/ to the technology.

We don't get threads about how to properly secure a building or protect against a mugging, but I couldn't and wouldn't call it off-topic. Datacentres contain computers, and people carry laptops/PDAs after all, but that isn't quite what I'm getting at.

I wouldn't call those subjects off-topic either, in fact I'd think they'd be far more on-topic than some of the subjects I'm discussing here. I'm a little confused by this actually, since I never argued about "non-technological" security. I'm all in favour of dicsussion about it here. I find social engineering fascinating, for example.

A better example of what I mean is that many organisations store people's personal information electronically in databases and they mis-manage that by leaving it open to stealing or they share/sell it. But similarly many organisations (hospitals come to mind) leave paper based information lying around where a punter can just pick it up and read it. As far as I'm concerned, the issue here is mis-management of personal information, and the technology or lack of is a secondary detail. Not that discussion of the details is off-topic, it just isn't the be-all and end-all of the matter.

Absolutely, and this is an excellent example of a subject that crosses a multitude of issues. In the first case, it's security, privacy (the right to have your information deleted) and liberty (the right to update your information) all rolled into one. The latter isn't technological, but of course it's a security issue, and one that should feature quite highly in security policies.

As I said, I accept the image problem, and I also accept what the common perception is, but I'm still open to suggestions on how to fix that.

I think another aspect of this is the placement of the board, and again perceptions and separation. The Security board is in firmly in the Technology section, which makes people think of the aspects I mentioned above so tactlessly. Technology implies hardware and software, but freedom and liberty issues are more societal, which draws people towards the Society section and boards like Humanities. Perhaps vB3 will provide the solution to this, as I think it allows you to softlink forums in different sections.

DeVore's point about the lack of a clear charter is probably relevant here.

I think a clear charter will help, but not solve the problem.

adam

ecksor

I can't take your posts literally, and you don't write between the lines. I don't know what I'm supposed to read here. I wasn't trying to read between the lines earlier. I thought I had made sense of your apparently contradictory views that the core of security issues are about firewalls and bugtraq (urge to kill rising) and your other view that non-technological issues are on-topic (I thought you had simplified for the benefit of others and I drew conclusions from that). I don't think we're going to agree here, and you seem offended by any suggestion by me that you have misconceptions, so I'm going to drop that one.

Weirdly enough, I think you've attributed a way of thinking to me on a thread where I've been trying to explain why that line of thinking is flawed.

Perhaps the two communities are different and hardheaded. But do you really think that it's a good idea to separate them and keep them at loggerheads? There is a balance to be achieved in any given issue that these communities are concerned with, and perhaps we could be taking a proactive step forward on this by presenting a forum where we can examine the same issues from the different points of view.

FWIW, this is partly what I was getting at with my comment on "professional ethics" earlier. For example, there is a lot of movement in the security community at the moment to develop/improve/refine content filtering technologies. The possibility that these can be used to interfere with freedom of the on-line press leads to an interesting and important ethical argument. To my knowledge this was raised first by a virus researcher. Also, would you really think that a security professional who was oblivious to privacy concerns/issues was suited to the job?

Ste-

The link in the drop down menu thing up there ^^^ at the top hasnt been changed.

DeVore

It rewrites the nav over night. Its there now.

DeV.

PiE

Methinks the "Web Dev" title would work a lot better than the "Webmaster / Flash" one, as Web Dev covers everything really.

The current title is kinda like naming a fruit forum "Fruit / Apples".

CuLT

Originally posted by PiE
Methinks the "Web Dev" title would work a lot better than the "Webmaster / Flash" one, as Web Dev covers everything really.

The current title is kinda like naming a fruit forum "Fruit / Apples".

What a wonderful analogy

, I agree.

ecksor

I'll rename it to Web DeVore.

PAPILLION

definately go with web/dev because development spans GUIs and Advertising to name a couple of things, which is a lot of what flah is about. As well as web design and animation.

DeVore

And 6 months from now another person will come along and request a Flash forum for precisely the same reasons that this one was requested. Not only that but the HTMLers will complain because their forum has been invaded by SQL/ASP heads.

This problem arose because we didnt expand on the title of the forum enough ... now we want to make it smaller?

"Web Dev / HTML / Flash" might work.... it covers all the bases.

DeV.

PAPILLION

of course.

good point.

Puck

Webmaster Flash! lol! "Don't push me 'cause I'm close to the edge.....":D