Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:They could fix everything (Score 2) 63

It isn't already a feature, and something of that nature has been wanted for a long, long, time, though not limited to colo{u}rs.

There are a few CSS macro processors, such as SASS and Less.js, built to workaround this specific deficiency. What's amazing is that it's never been addressed by the W3C, despite being identified as a problem right from the start.

Comment Re:Democrats, not the "Electoral System" (Score 4, Informative) 210

It's largely the media, who themselves are following the lead of the public, and it's because he's just not that interesting. The public isn't showing any massive interest, and he's not an established politician who's due coverage simply by virtue of being a congressman, therefore he doesn't get covered.

The Democratic party doesn't really care who runs as long as (1) they don't topple an establishment candidate and (2) they don't make the Dems look like loonies.

Is Lessig charismatic and well known enough to get any interest beyond coverage in some nerd sites? No. Really, no. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, but issues like "Will I still have a job in four years", "How am I going to afford my cancer treatment?" and "Am I safe when I leave my house" trumps many, many, issues people here care about that Lessig is promising to address, from the outrageous evil that is not being able to copy a Nicki Minaj single onto an a DRM-free MP3 until 2127, to electoral reform.

Comment Re:I really want to criticize your JE (Score 1) 11

It doesn't. Both parties have a grassroots vs establishment thing going on. It's just in the Democratic race, it looks very much like the establishment will prevail. Republicans are in a very different situation, largely thanks to the continuing influence of the Tea Party wing. The only commonality is that we're both going face choices that suck, but for radically different reasons.

We Democrats get to face the unpleasant reality that an establishment figure nobody agrees with or particularly likes is likely to head our party leading to the election. You Republicans get to face the unpleasant reality that you have a choice few would want to make, between more of the same, and a big name that appears to outsiders to be a massive, Mafia connected, RINO, fraud. I don't envy you, and I hope you don't envy us.

Comment Re:I really want to criticize your JE (Score 1) 11

She's a little more inevitable, unfortunately. There's no Obama in this race, a well supported establishment candidate with charisma. Biden is only likely to enter the race if Sanders looks likely to topple her which is highly unlikely.

Imagine if the current Republican field was Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and, for the sake of argument, Rubio was hedging his bets and not entering the race for reasons that don't entirely make sense beyond an assumption that there was an semi-secret agreement between the two not to run against one another unless Clinton was likely to lose the primary anyway. You'd expect, because the * Pauls always get some enthusiasm at the beginning, Rand Paul to be doing well, but the establishment would be behind Jeb, and Jeb would almost certainly win.

2008 was more like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney being in the race at the beginning. Two establishment candidates, Clinton and Obama, both with sizable support, and with Obama trouncing Clinton in every respect except for political experience.

Comment Re:Electrolysis (Score 1) 146

: I did propose a solution - open them as you need them and close them when you're done.

That's not a solution, that's what we do already. That's what everyone does.

What really confuses me is you exclaiming that this is something you do like it is some grand achievement.

Uh, what?

Let's use Slashdot as an example. So according to the description given they (and presumably you) open the main page. You then scroll through, reading and opening things in new tabs as you see fit, and then go to those new tabs and read those, correct? Except, by the time you've done this there have been all sorts of people who may have (or might not have) commented. By the time you get to the last Slashdot tab you opened you're quite late to the content and not viewing the more up-to-date conversation unless you refresh which is just silly because you could have saved yourself the effort and viewed each one, one at a time.

I'm really not getting it. You appear to be arguing, if I understand this correctly, that because an article might be slightly out of date by the time we get around to reading it, that we must - because somehow we know that we'll read it one day later - decide it would be better not to read it at all than to risk the chance we might have to hit the Refresh button to get the latest version.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm just letting you know that there's a better way that lets you interact with pages in a more timely fashion and with far less confusion than needing more tabs open than you can possibly read the titles for.

You haven't proposed one.

Thus far, your latest screed argues that we should do exactly what we're doing already (closing tabs once we're done with them), and that somehow what we're doing already is the worst thing ever because we might have to hit the Refresh button by the time we look at the tab.

One is not actually telling us there's a "better way", the other is simply criticizing us over something so obviously pathetic I can't even fathom why you'd bring it up.

Perhaps you have a strange definition of trolling?

It's borderline trolling because you're immediately launching into an attack without even trying to determine why someone is doing what they're doing. It's like "Look at those stupid people writing numbers and squiggly lines on chalkboards! Don't then know that if they want to exercise their arms dumbbells would build up their muscles far more quickly?"

"I open 400 browser tabs at once!" This is not a viable solution to a mere mortal.

Nobody has 400 browser tabs, the fact you feel the need to exaggerate already should tell you you're on the wrong path. As to your complaint that I accused you, you poor delicate flower, of trolling when you have no interest in how I work and just don't care, how many words have you devoted to this issue that you clearly (sarcasm) don't care about?

But that said, I come back to my original comment. Having multiple tabs open is, in reality, the only way to look at a constantly changing index page - of forums, news, whatever - and say "I'm interested in this, in this, in this" without risking those pages disappearing before I've had a chance to look at them. So what is the viable solution? I don't want to clutter up my bookmarks, and besides, right-click, add book mark, and create a name, would be infuriatingly annoying compared to middle-click.

So what is the "real" solution?

Because opening multiple tabs is that solution. In fact, it's probably the #1 reason tabs were invented. Otherwise could just have three windows open and tabs are overkill for that.

Should a different solution have been implemented instead? Possibly. tabs aren't perfect. But let's stop pretending that people who have more than three tabs open are doing something wrong.

Comment Re:Electrolysis (Score 0) 146

Not OP, but same workflow: They are being closed. After they've been read. Which is later.

My suggestion is rather than insist there's no reason someone would open links to read later, you propose either a sane alternative that's just as comfortable as opening tabs for things you plan to read using technologies in Firefox et al already (I don't think there are any, otherwise we'd be using them. No, we don't want to clutter up our bookmarks with them, and bookmarks aren't exactly a solution anyway given you can't really quickly add an unopened link to a bookmark, which might not work anyway given referrers and other nonsense.),

...or you could propose to Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Microsoft some other solution that means this perfectly normal workflow can be replaced by something else.

Until then, I question why you're complaining about other people opening a lot of tabs. It's none of your business (that applies to anyone making this complaint, not just you personally), you've made no effort to understand why people do this, and you're attempting to micromanage how other people read the web.

You're not helping. You're borderline trolling.

Comment Re:Moral of the story: (Score 1) 146

But was the screw up Flash, or the fact Flash was needed to make websites able to show animations, videos, and play audio, because until HTML5 nobody was willing to set the standards necessary?

Flash didn't come out of no-where, it was necessary to implement certain concepts over the web - and to a certain extent, still is.

Comment Re:I really want to criticize your JE (Score 1) 11

Sanders is a European socialist, not a South/Central American one, so I suspect we'd be more like Britain in the (let's be honest, never going to happen) event that he wins power and is able to exercise it (with a willing Congress, and more importantly, willing population.)

Would that be a good or bad thing? As an ex-Brit, I'd say that most of what makes America great has to do with the attitudes of its citizens, but certainly a government that tries to be hands off helps, though the US sometimes takes that too far (and when it doesn't it tends to screw up more than the UK government.)

I'd take the UK healthcare system, and the lack of obsession with roads as a universal form of transportation, but probably leave everything else, if I were to import anything from UK government policy into the US in an attempt to improve the latter.

But yeah, I don't think - Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, etc - this election is going to do anything but suck. You guys have some, uh, interesting candidates *cough* and we... well, we're likely to end up with Hillary Clinton. *shudder*

United States

Journal Journal: The other car 11

President Clinton - GWB's fifth term. The continuation of everything from the partisan insanity to the continuation of the post-9/11 war-on-humanity. Rating: *OHMYHELL*.

Comment Re:No. It won't be (Score 1) 174

I think the hold up is that ARM needs to be comparable in terms of computing power to Intel. Right now ARM's great as a low power platform (though Intel is seriously catching up) but Chromebooks are a very conspicuous case where ARMs are used in an environment they're almost never seen in.

I don't think the problem is the ABI. Apple has solved that three times before, 68K to PowerPC, and PowerPC to ix86 and ix86-64. The solutions weren't beautiful, but they worked. And the PowerPC to two different Intel APIs transition occurred with the current generation of operating system.

If ARM makes sense, they'll switch to it. I just don't see why they would - yet.

Comment Re:Why the lack of interest? (Score 2) 218

I'm not sure there's ever been that much interest. It's more of a theoretical standard, useful for people packaging binaries with hard coded paths, but even that isn't particularly useful right now. The LSB lost credibility from the Debian side from the start by picking the rival RPM as the packaging manager, and while I gather that different was papered over in time, the other fundamental issues - differing library versions, different standards for inclusion, etc - that prevent the concept of a "universal" package never got resolved.

It's probably a good thing it's going, a bad mostly ignored "standard" is probably worse than no standard at all, as it leads developers to make assumptions about what's available that they probably shouldn't.

Comment Re:I guess they realised... (Score 5, Informative) 149

Well, it's funny how something with "the underpinnings of how X11 does it are actually decrepit and inefficient and compare poorly to other strategies that leverage different entry points that Wayland actually preserves" still manages to solve the problem, and Wayland doesn't.

X11 isn't perfect. Nobody's ever argued that. It's just nobody's really asking for a replacement, and if they were, they wouldn't be asking for Wayland. X11 is an extraordinary piece of technology, it takes some gal to claim everyone should just throw it out and replace it with a ground up rewrite that adds no new features and doesn't support the major features X11 is famous and loved for.

It's not like init/SystemD, where init really was a bug ridden piece of garbage that's needed replacing now since before Linux itself came on the scene, and SystemD implements everything init did but does it right.

Comment The money quote (Score 5, Insightful) 176

Hayden said that losing the first Crypto War on the Clipper Chip did not stop the US government from obtaining the information it needed.

âoeIn retrospect, we mastered the problem we created by the lack of the Clipper Chip,â he said. âoeWe were able to do a whole bunch of other things. Some of the other things were metadata, and bulk collection and so on.â

So... "don't ban encryption, we don't need to!"

Comment Re:Waaaahhhhh!! (Score 1) 688

Your summary is missing the 500lb gorilla, which makes it extraordinarily misleading to anyone following the discussion.

Let's correct and add information to one dubious statement here:

And, one of my own questions: Why do we want/need PE binaries when ELF are extensible [the "E" in ELF] and have widely supported tool chains? Answer: Because MS is pushing it.

No, the answer is: Because Microsoft only signs PE binaries.

And then let's go up to:

why do you bother with the MS keysigning of Linux kernel modules to begin with?

Here is the 500lb gorilla: Because most implementations of secure boot only accept keys signed by Microsoft.

So in order to get a random Linux-based distribution to run on a generic secure boot enabled PC, your choices are either to remove secure boot (which isn't always possible), hope that the firmware maker included your distribution's key (highly unlikely), or have it signed by Microsoft, which means going the PE route.

ELF may be superior to PE, but that doesn't make it a solution to the problem that RedHat raised. X.509 keys may be an international standard, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this.

It was a legitimate issue to raise, and it was handled badly by Torvalds and others. A legitimate response would have been "The inability of our kernel to be installed on what's likely to be the majority of computers in a few years is a small price to pay for using superior technologies", not "RedHat just wants to give Microsoft blow jobs", which is immature, pathetic, and doesn't answer anything.

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray