|
Probably old news but I was wondering how many of you care about this?[^]
Silverlight will go, but Chrome's in-built Flash player will stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Sad. It's such an elegant language. I wish MS had thrown more support into it. Long live WPF I hope.
|
|
|
|
|
We care a lot.
It'll cost us a small fortune to rewrite our customer self service app.
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
That'll teach you to rely on here-today-gone-tomorrow technology from fly-by-night little companies! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
jan larsen wrote: It'll cost us a small fortune to rewrite our customer self service app.
It won't cost a lot to add a note:
"This program does not work in your inferior browser. Please upgrade to a more advanced browser to use this program".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
We care and are forced to accelerate moving our (very large) SL enterprise app to HTML.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
At work, we currently on IE 8; testing in underway to allow a probable upgrade to IE 11 and make Chrome available as well. That is scheduled for the June time frame.
Now, how does that impact us?
We currently have a vendor product that uses Silverlight; the next version is available, I think it has been rewritten in HTML 5, but requires IE 10 or later or Chrome. As a developer, I have Chrome; the general population does not.
I was in a meeting the other day and saw a vendor hosted and maintained application. It was written in Silverlight. As long as IE supports Silverlight, we'll be fine.. if it doesn't, it'll be on the vendor to rewrite.
|
|
|
|
|
You must work for the same bank as I do, we are in exactly the same position with the added twist that we have 14 SL apps in production as well as the vendor app.
The whole web stack stinks IMHO, the only reason we went to web was because SL gave us a desktop like UI and now they don't want to back to clickonce  . MV f***ing C and the 43 additional libraries needed to make the pig work!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Large company, utility industry, not banking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's still working for me, and I have the latest Chrome version... 
But, if they did actually stop supporting it, then I would not like it because Netflix and Hulu both use Silverlight to display videos...
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
For the industry I think it is a good thing - it will remove support more quickly and force people to look elsewhere.
Silverlight is obviously dead, so why prolong the agony - put it out of its misery!
Judging by the recent WPF roadmap announcement[^], WPF may not be far behind!
Honestly, when a roadmap article lists Quote: Multi-image cursor file support in System.Windows.Input.Cursor
as one of the five things they've been working on, you have to worry about the longevity.
It's a shame, though. If, instead of rushing out alpha quality projects, MS had held onto it until it actually worked, XAML would probably be everywhere by now. Another boat missed!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
You had me after "First"
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
That's so cool. I curious, though. If the lensed star is directly in line with the lensing galaxy, why do we see four dots instead of ring?
|
|
|
|
|
This is because the lensing galaxy is not symmetrical, so only the light along four paths is brought to a focus close to us.
If you could somehow move toward / away from the lensing galaxy, you would see the images move, split and /or combine. That would be even cooler...
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: If you could somehow move toward / away from the lensing galaxy, you would see the images move, split and /or combine. That would be even cooler...
Pretty sure that the cool part of that would not be the change in image but rather the movement part (given that I am rather certain very large distances would be needed.)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that FTL travel would be even cooler than a change in an obscure gravitational lensing effect, but it is not necessary.
Gravitational lenses act in a similar manner to optical lenses. The Sun creates its own lensing effect, focusing light from infinity at ~880550 AU (thanks to the late SF author Charles Sheffield for pointing this out). If we could place a detector so that the Sun is between it and the lensing galaxy, we would create a telescope that magnifies ~3.6*10^11, i.e. 360 billion times (!)
880550 AU is about 64 times the distance reached by the Voyager space craft (see http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/[^]), but not even a hundredth of the distance to the nearest star.
modified 17-Jan-15 13:31pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 880 AU is about 6 times the distance reached by the Voyager space
How far would it need to be for the posted link to achieve "...see the images move, split and /or combine."?
|
|
|
|
|
The following is just my guesstimate, after a bit more thinking on the subject. Any inconsistencies / errors are my own.
In order for the lensing to be visible, the supernova's light must be focused at our location. If the mass distribution of the gravitational lens was spherically symmetrical, we would see a perfect ring around the gravitational lens, indicating that the light is refracted all around the lens. The four points that we see indicate that the lens is not perfect.
This means that some light (from the four points that we see) is brought to a focus in the Solar System, but other light is brought to a focus before / behind the Solar System (from the gravitational lens's point of view).
Gravitational lenses require a very precise alignment between the source, the lens, and the viewer (us). If this were not so, we would see many more cases of such lensing, and astronomers would have been sure much earlier that something very strange is occurring. I would therefore guesstimate that a movement of no more than a few light-years in either direction would visibly change the image. How it would change would depend on the exact mass density in the lens.
I will gladly accept a correction to my guesstimate from anyone who is willing to work their way through the Physics / Mathematics...
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: of no more than a few light-years in either direction
And thus the first comment I made...
Pretty sure that the cool part of that would not be the change in image but rather the movement part (given that I am rather certain very large distances would be needed.)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
I believe that if the Human Race ever discovers an economic need to travel a few light-years - it will discover a way to do so. It may not be fast, it may not be cool, but it will answer the economic needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems unlikely to me, though, that two cases of this both show four images; Shirley too big a coincidence to be a coincidence?
Maybe there's a Borg cube in the centre of the cluster?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
If so, we are safe. The Borg were (will be?) destroyed in 2065, just before Earth's first contact with Vulcan. 
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see why this is news...of course it's going to be Astronomers who find it..now if a bunch of Butchers has found it.. that would be news.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
