Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Can anybody tell me, please (Score 1) 106

by Carewolf (#47811409) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

Desktop screens have had two sizes in the past 10 years to my knowledge: 4:3 and 16:9 (or close to it), so they have not been getting wider and wider.

I you start at 4:3 moving over whatever the hell 1280x1024 was, then back to 4:3 a too short flirt with 3:2 then settling on 16:10 before dumping it for 16:9, and now trying to argue 32:9 is what everybody (should) want. Sounds like the desktop screens are getting wider and wider to me.

Comment: Re:It's the 1990s all over again. (Score 1) 105

by Carewolf (#47811317) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

<img lowsrc='...' src='...' ...>

That was never standardized, and its implementation was removed for reasons described in bug 92453.

Or, you could could go with the 2000s route, and use CSS's media queries so that you don't try to push large images down to small-screen devices.

Do media queries allow changing the effective src of an img element, or do they work only with background images?

You could combine it with the CSS 'content' property if supported, or just pretend the background is the foreground, which it tends to be unless you put something in front of it.

Seriously. This would be better solved by going back to trying to standardize CSS 'content' that way IMG could be implemented using CSS.

Comment: Re:Sigh... (Score 2) 50

It won't be the end of humanity... There's no chance that this will ever develop to that scale.

War is an archetypal situation. Once the possibility of one starting develops, it has "suction": people react to the archetype, and that threatens to overwhem rational thought. The archetype was worshipped as a divinity in many cultures precisely because war behaves as if it was a living thing seeking to devour people - or, in this case, the entire world.

So yes, there's every chance this will develop into World War III: Last Dance.

Comment: Re:Which Invasion? (Score 1) 165

by ultranova (#47810005) Attached to: Kernel Developer Dmitry Monakhov Arrested For Protesting Ukraine Invasion

A good cyberwarfare department could easily post lots of fake satellite imagery to google from multiple sources.

A good cyberwarfare department does what it's told. Gaining foreign hostility is likely one of Putin's goals in all this, because he can use the resulting siege mentality to concentrate more power in his hands. For that matter, economic sanctions work in his favour too, since they get Russians used to lower standard of living which gets blamed on West, thus allowing Putin to move economic resources to military.

Comment: Re:Double Dragon Neon: Damsel in Distress? (Score 1) 1229

by Luckyo (#47809799) Attached to: Anita Sarkeesian, Creator of "Tropes vs. Women," Driven From Home By Trolls

I may have. I typically post on slashdot before going to bed, or during insomniac period. At that point, I have in the past confused different posters. If so, I apologise.

Regardless, Sarkeesian, and a couple of others are know to be scam artists preying on gullible people. If you are looking for a debunking of a specific claim in a specific video of this particular scam artist, you can search youtube for a dosen. There are quite a few people, men and women alike who spent a significant amount of time debunking her arguments through use of logic and research.

I will readily admit that I simply don't want to bother to do the same just to participate in the discussion. I apologise if that feels like a cop-out on my part - it probably is. But making arguments that others already made for me does sound like a waste of time.

Comment: Re:Wait.... what? (Score 1) 240

by shutdown -p now (#47809335) Attached to: Ukraine Asks Zuckerberg to Discipline Kremlin Facebook Bots

BTW, here's why I think the official results are closer to reality than this guy's estimates.

First of all, there are UN polls (which I trust more than any Russian or Ukrainian polls, given how politicized this matter has always been between the two countries). Before the election of Yanukovich as president, in 2009, these shown 70% in favor of joining Russia, and only 15% against it. These figures gradually decreased to 65% under Yanuk. After he was ousted and maidan took over in Kiev, I'd expect this number to shoot back to 70%, at the very least, and likely grow even further because of heavy Russian propaganda pitching maidan as "fascists" and "banderovtsy" (and most people in Crimea were getting their news mainly from Russian TV channels, not Ukrainian ones). With 16% undecided in the original polls, I can totally see support at 75% or so.

The other, more indirect indicator is language. This is more reliable than ethnicity, because Ukraine has a very blurry line between the two, with plenty of people self-identifying as Ukrainian on the basis of their family name or their parents' self-identification, but culturally and linguistically behaving as Russians in all other aspects. For example, in Crimea, less than 60% self-identified as Russians, but 77% listed Russian as their native language of communication (and 90% in Sevastopol) - whereas only 10% listed Ukrainian as such. It's even more skewed if you ask people which language they primarily use at home with family (since some would consider native language tied to ethnicity) - in this case you're looking at something like 95% in Crimea. Crimea also had extremely low levels of bilingualism, with only 30% of the population proficient in Ukrainian at all - a stark contrast with the rest of the country, where bilingualism is the norm, except for Western Ukraine where Ukrainian dominates with a similar proportion.

Now if you look at these language figures and consider them a proxy for political affiliation (an oversimplification, but not an unreasonable one), they also match pretty closely to what the official claim was: 80% turnout, 97% in favor of the union. What this looks like to me is that most everyone who was against the union did not vote at all, considering the referendum illegal (Crimean Tatars, in particular, had an open boycott); and most of those who wanted the union came and voted. The real numbers are probably closer to 70% for turnout and 90% in favor or thereabouts, but still a clear supermajority.

Comment: Re:Wait.... what? (Score 1) 240

by shutdown -p now (#47809145) Attached to: Ukraine Asks Zuckerberg to Discipline Kremlin Facebook Bots

I would consider it such, if it were based on some solid data (i.e. polls or such) - but this is just one guy's opinion, and I don't know where he stands politically in general. The Russian "human rights council" is basically an umbrella organization to keep pet opposition under control - and "pet" here means that they don't do anything that is actually dangerous to the regime, but they still occasionally flaunt their not-quite-agreeable status in harmless ways.

Regarding the division, I assume that the text - being written by a Russian official after the annexation - uses the political division that Russia has adopted. In it, Sevastopol is a "city of federal importance", which means that it is its own separate federal subject with its own government etc; and the rest of the peninsula is the Republic of Crimea. The only other places in Russia that have a similar arrangement are Moscow and St Petersburg, which are also distinct from their surrounding oblasts.

The referendum itself was also split along the same lines, because the arrangement was also similar in Ukraine - Sevastopol was a "city with special status" with its own administration, and distinct from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. So the Sevastopol city administration held one referendum within its limits, and Crimean administration (in Simferopol) held it in the rest of the peninsula - and, technically speaking, those two had separate results. So when discussing them, it's common to address each part separately, especially as the results in Sevastopol were significantly skewed by letting Russian soldiers legally stationed in the city (on the naval base) to vote.

Comment: Re:Wait.... what? (Score 1) 240

by shutdown -p now (#47808715) Attached to: Ukraine Asks Zuckerberg to Discipline Kremlin Facebook Bots

It's not Putin's people, though. It's one guy from the "President's Council for Human Rights", from a field report on his trip - not official data.

The numbers you quote are also not what's written there. He says "In Sevastopol, the vast majority voted for union, with a turnout of 50-80%. In Crimea [i.e. the rest of peninsula - not Sevastopol], according to varying sources, about 50-60% voted for the union, with a turnout of 30-50%".

Which, yes, is still different from the official figures. And the official figures are likely higher than reality, but reality is still that there's a clear majority supporting the union in Crimea. Which is not news to anyone who studied the topic before, since Crimea (and especially Sevastopol) was always a hotbed of Russian separatism in Ukraine.

Basically, it's kinda like presidential elections in Russia. They're falsified to show 70%+ approval, but Putin would still win them with a considerable margin even if they weren't.

Comment: Re:Send in the drones! (Score 1) 831

by shutdown -p now (#47808625) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

I can assure you that Soviet soldiers (and Soviet citizens in general, for whom it was fashionable at the time to want to volunteer to fight in Vietnam - kids would occasionally run away with such an idea in mind) knew full well that it was American soldiers fighting on the other side in Vietnam - it was prominent on "anti-Vietnam-war" posters etc that were in abundance everywhere. Here is one example - the text on the left says "Vietnam will win", the text on the right is "Aggressor out of Vietnam!'.

American involvement was a major staple of Soviet propaganda at the time. Indeed, it was a major staple of Soviet propaganda after WW2 in general - everything bad that happened in the world, happened because of American occupation thereof.

Comment: Re:Rules of war (Score 1) 240

by Carewolf (#47801341) Attached to: Ukraine Asks Zuckerberg to Discipline Kremlin Facebook Bots

The maps doesn't really disagree, they are just painted differently. If you double check with google maps on the side, the areas where the BBC map and Russian propaganda map disagrees are uninhabited areas of corn field that probably neither side bothers to defend. Pick you poison. The BBC maps was more informative as it showed Luhansk to be surrounded which it was.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...