If I could reply, I would add a reply to my prior comment about incomplete summaries. Now that I'm on my desktop I can see that there is a goofy multi-bar icon, and when I click on it I can select classic view. Or at least pseudo classic view.

What's with the fixed width content and all the white space? Yuck. Please let me pick the width of the content area by changing the width of the window.

What's with all the white space. Did WalMart have a sale on blank pixels?

What happened to the "From the ... Dept." tag under the title. Are we now too grown up for levity?

Why is the fortune cookie now virtually invisible in small font with a low contrast?

The whole new look and feel, the removal or minimization of light-hearted portions of the site, and other features give me a strong sense that your corporate overlords have decided that you should look just like all the other sites that various corporate overlords control.

Increasingly /. seems to becoming irrelevant. I read Google News before getting to /. and increasingly I've already read stories about an issue before I get to /., sometimes days earlier. Slashdot used to be a site where one could find interesting stories about the tech world that generally weren't covered in the mainstream press, or at least we'd learn about them before they became mainstream. Not so much anymore. The new layout seems to be completing /.'s trip to being a JANS. (Just Another News Site)

The title says it all. I don't want to have to load a new page, along with all the comments to read the whole summary. Additionally, with more and more people using mobile devices, loading a new page with a whole whack of comments that won't necessarily be read, just to get the whole summary, is a waste of metered bandwidth.

The problem with movies, and to a similar extent comics, is that you are captive to come body else's interpretation. Non visual media allows you to craft your own vision on top of the story. I personally find that much more rewarding, but it does require a practiced imagination.

I'm not sure what bank you deal with, but at my bank funds are available the next business day after I deposit, and the first $100 is available immediately. Maybe that's "float", but not enough that I'm going to squawk.

One important thing for people to realize is that even if the bank clear the check immediately, as in the instant you present it, it can still bounce. All the electronic clearing does is validate that the account number is real and that the account has sufficient funds to cover the check. The account holder can still claim that the check is a forgery and you are then liable for the amount of the check unless some other resolution is arrived at, e.g. it can be shown that the presenter of the check is lying that it is a forgery.

Just remember, curious is not synonymous with approve or accept.

If I met somebody with a Google Glass I too would be curious. That doesn't mean I would approve or welcome the person taking a video of me. As irrational as it is, to a lot of people there is a big difference between somebody standing there blatantly videoing you Vs the ever present surveillance cameras, at least from an emotional perspective.

Like the USA? We have greater economic inequality since the robber baron era. And we seem hell bent on becoming the newest third world country.

Let see, an ocean capable and proven boat, a full load of fuel, generator, watermaker, long range HF radio equipment... We could easily last for an extended period with only food being the limiting factor. Unless a tsunami takes out the harbor, we can easily just untie the boat and leave for an area not affected by whatever the problem is.

Well stated. If only we could somehow move there as a nation we'd be a lot better off. Unfortunately we're stuck with the Bushism "If you're not with us, you're against us."

Hopefully the AC comment was posted as a sarcastic comment. It's hard to tell sometimes. But yes, the social media hords did get two INNOCENT people on the cover. Mostly it seems as though the crowd sourcing folks did a great imitation of Chicken Little.

While some of the logos are great artist creations, they were mostly, or totally I can't remember exactly, animated. Web page logos shouldn't be animated. Anything animated calls or attention to it and distracts us from the rest of the page. If the purpose of a web page is to show off animated icons, then by all means, proceed. But if the purpose of a website is to provide content to the user the best thing you can do is banish all animation.

I don't know the legal issues at hand, nor do I know the laws of China, but if what you are planing to do is a violation of those laws you should be prepared for an extended stay as a guest of the Chinese government.

While you might not believe that what they do is correct, moral, or defensible, it is non the less their country. Just as you would expect foreign visitors to your own country to respect the local laws, you should respect the laws of a country that you visit. If you find the laws so personally distasteful that can not abide by them, don't go.

While I'm concerned about being tracked, the major reason I adblock is to avoid having annoying animated ads appear. My eyes are inexorably drawn to anything animated within my near field of view. If a site has any animation on it I have an extremely hard time concentrating on the content. So adblock is most helpful in helping avoid all maner of methods that advertisers use to try and capture your eyeball.

If there were some means of blocking any animated content while still allowing ads I would think seriously of using that. I want the sites that I rely on to earn money. I don't have a problem with advertisers using sites as a venue to get the word out about their product. But I do want to be able to read the sites I visit.

I'm a self employed mobile marine electrician. So I guess I get to work by walking. That is, from my boat where we live to my work truck in the parking lot. But after that it is a HBV, Hurking Big Van. Not very fuel efficient, but probably uses less fuel than driving a small vehicle and running back and forth to the shop for every little thing.

I just visited a link on the dailyrecord.co.uk and received some kind of cookie notice. The notice appeared as a pop up in the bottom right corner (the last place an english speaker will scan to) with text in pale grey. The notice was clearly designed to be difficult to notice. Even though I saw it pop up right away, I didn't have a chance to read the text or see which link to use to opt out before the notice disappeared. It was clear from the first sentence that if I did nothing I was consenting to be tracked.

I guess the law, which clearly had good intentions, has been eviscerated so that now the websites can just briefly display a hard to notice blob of text, remove it before you have a chance to read it, and continue tracking you with impunity.