Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Should be simple (Score 1) 53

by TheGratefulNet (#49366253) Attached to: Arduino Dispute Reaches Out To Distributors

there is no more money in arduino hardware anymore. its a fact.

business model is hard. the value is the software and libs and user content (MOSTLY user content! its all about the libraries and examples that let us all do rapid prototyping).

I bought some 328 arduino italy boards when I first started, at $30 or so, each. maybe more, I forget. but they were expensive and I stopped buying them once I could do my own boards. and now, even my own boards do not make as much sense; since I can buy a usb nanon 3.0 board for $5. sure, it has crap ftdi fake chips on it (sigh) but newer ones are using non-ftdi chips and so that's good progress.

the size of a nano v3 module is great, its all there and its hard to argue with that kind of easy integration. but no one buys italy or official nano modules. they exist and i'm sure they are better made with real parts, but they cost too much!

I hope they can find a good business model. the arduino guys did a big thing to help the world get into controllers (major game changer; they deserve full credit) but now that chinese clones are out there, the hardware side is 'solved'. sad but true.

arguing over who sells the hardware is a lose/lose game.

Comment: Re:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 149

What is this "regular HTML video" you're talking about? I'm talking about the new HTML5 media elements, things like <video>.

And Flash has been a viable technology for implementing these kinds of features for a very long time, and still would be had it not been deliberately sabotaged by the likes of Apple and Google for their own purposes. Ignoring your apparent personal prejudice, why objectively should I as a professional web developer not have been using such tools if they get the best results for my clients?

Comment: Re:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 149

Believe it or not, a majority of big-name sites are still using Flash, along with open-source JS players.

Exactly. Sites now have to provide the same functionality twice, because the browsers have made such a mess of standardisation that you can't rely on a single implementation to actually work portably.

It seems to me you're complaining that using new features that aren't yet standardized, aren't yet standardized. I can sympathize with your frustration, but then if you don't like it, don't use them.

Unfortunately, in the real world, that is often not an option. If your client wants multimedia elements on their site, you're going to need HTML5 multimedia elements despite the fact that numerous aspects of how they work aren't standardised. And just to be clear, this is stuff that has been available in browsers for 5+ years now. It's hardly some new development, and failure to standardise effectively after such a long period is just a demonstration of how worthless some of these standardisation processes have become.

Ultimately, what matters is whether your site works in visitors' browsers. Standards are only a means to that end, and validation in turn is only useful if you have useful standards to validate against. Since a lot of the web standards today are borderline worthless due to their instability and/or their failure to specify so many aspects that make a difference in practice, validation doesn't really give you the assurance you seek of compatibility either across today's browsers or with future browsers.

Once again, I'm not saying the world wouldn't be a better place if you did have that assurance or that I agree with the path the browser makers and standards bodies have chosen to follow. I'm just saying that as a web developer you have to play the cards you've been dealt, and I don't see formal validation as improving your chances to any useful degree today.

Comment: Re:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 149

That's why you don't use newer features until they're absorbed by the standard.

Well, OK, so when should I expect that I can build a brochure site for a hotel that uses HTML5 videos and have one video format and one set of custom controls to work with? Because the world has moved on and Flash is no longer a viable option for this kind of work despite offering those advantages for many years, thanks to much the same browser developers who can't get their act together and actually provide a better replacement. They can't even manage to make the default "this is a video" overlay look the same, or even put it in roughly the same place so you can design placeholder graphics accordingly.

If your company's video site actually is YouTube then this kind of problem probably doesn't affect you all that much. However, for normal web sites that are just trying to take advantage of multimedia as part of the presentation, HTML5 audio and video are a bad joke, and the punchline is that all the much better technologies that used to be viable alternatives have been deliberately killed off anyway.

You may not care for the practice, but nothing leaves my hands into production until it validates

But this brings us back to the original question from my first post in this thread: why? What objective advantage do you or your employer/client gain by insisting on such compliance?

I do sympathise with your position, in that it should be an advantage to follow standards, and browser compatibility now and in the future should be practically guaranteed by doing so. The world would be a better place if this were the reality. But it isn't, and so pragmatically, I'd rather build web sites and apps that work than sites and apps that dogmatically tick the right boxes even though it requires more effort and offers no demonstrable benefit.

Comment: Re:The butting edge (Score 1) 42

by hairyfeet (#49362791) Attached to: Toshiba Announces 3D Flash With 48 Layers

Bigot much? I listed several use cases that didn't have a thing to do with gaming, or do you think those taking pictures and home movies are pirates too?

And since we are jumping on the asshole train if VM users made even 5% of the population I'd be fucking amazed, it is YOU sir who are the extreme niche case which doesn't register as there are a hell of a lot more gamers (a market that has made more than Hollywood 15 years in a row) than VM users...hell probably a lot more warez hoarders than VM users.

Finally way to miss the point...WHOOSH...if you ONLY download the game when you are ready to play? You gonna be sitting there with your dick in your hand for at least a few hours every time you want to play...who wants that? I'm currently playing around 20GB worth of games...have 300GB worth installed...why? Because if I feel like a stealth game I do NOT want to play a stealth game in 3 hours, I want to play it NOW, same with FPS, same with sandbox or RTS, I don't want to wait, sometimes til the next day, when I could just "click game, start playing" and with 1TB going for $40, 2TB going for less than $60, why shouldn't I just have the games ready? I have 3TB installed and even with a pile of games and vids and music I still have over 800GB free so I don't have to give a single fuck about game size, if I wants it I gets it, period. Its a shame Steam doesn't do a hardware survey about install habits as I bet I'm faaar from alone!

Comment: Re:Its a shame WebM sucks (Score 0) 67

by hairyfeet (#49362757) Attached to: Another Patent Pool Forms For HEVC

DaFuq? What does anime piracy have to do with shit, you like the majority eats Pokki and watches...sheeit, can't even name any of that crap for a comparison...uhhh...Battletech?

Again look at the formats that HAVE taken off...what do they have in common? EVERYBODY CAN USE IT, sure there are tools that can use CLI, fuck I'm sure you can encode MP3s in CLI...but nobody give a fuuuck, the majority are using easy GUIs...of which jack and shit exists for WebM. Fuck even the last Handbrake I checked had HEVC support...no support for WebM.

If you want your format to take off? KISS, make sure there are easy to use tools that make it, make sure your format runs better than the other guys in most if not all use cases, and make it so the layman can take a file and with minimal effort turn it into your format...mark my words WebM ain't going nowhere, even with Google pushing it. Remember G+? Yeah that had Google pushing it too..went nowhere.

Comment: Re:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 149

Were you doing websites 10 or 15 years ago? I was. Browser compatibility today is phenomenal in comparison.

Yes, I was, and I respectfully disagree. Browsers today do a lot more, but frequently the support for newer features is so specific to each browser and in some cases so unstable that it is completely useless for real world projects, it requires silly amounts of boilerplate and prefixing (= will break at some future point you can't predict, so also useless for production sites that won't have ongoing maintenance), or at best it requires implementing something in multiple independent ways.

An example of useful standardisation would have been all browsers using the same default stylesheet. Imagine how much developer time could have been saved and how many glitches could have been avoided over the years if we had never needed things like CSS resets or Normalize.

If it breaks my JS or CSS, I won't use it unless the stakeholder absolutely insists.

But the point is that these non-standard-compliant implementation techniques don't break anything in practice, because every browser is tolerant of them and will always remain so because far too much would break otherwise. The only downside to not following those standards is that someone can complain you're not following their preferred standards. And someone always will, but unless it really does matter (for example, because it excludes customers and damages your bottom line, or it actually does undermine some sort of accessibility aid) you can just ignore them.

Comment: Re:OMG america is stupid (Score 1, Insightful) 168

by PCM2 (#49361967) Attached to: Commercial Flamethrower Successfully Crowdfunded

If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.

Well, fear and burning people to death so they're no longer a threat. Not very efficient, but effective.

And I guess the "practical applications" of your guns, if they don't involve fear, involve gunning people down, right? Don't bother with scaring them off, just kill them.

Between you and me, it seems like the practical application of creating fear is working just great on you, quick-draw.

Comment: Its a shame WebM sucks (Score 1, Interesting) 67

by hairyfeet (#49361779) Attached to: Another Patent Pool Forms For HEVC

I had real hope thet with a powerhouse like Google behind it WebM would be the one to kill stupid crap like this, but oh boy is Google missing the boat.

The reason a format "takes off" is because its easy for the layman to use, they convert, create, upload videos and more and more jump on the bandwagon and pretty soon people start demanding devices support X, see MP3, DivX/Xvid, MKV containers, and now H.264/AVC in MP4 or MKV containers. Has anybody tried the WebM encoders? They STINK, its either a bunch of CLI gobbledygook or its some half assed support in some other encoder. Its also obvious that the encoders they do have out there are designed for streaming video and if you want a format to beat H.264? It had better run just as smooth on the desktop of the encoder as it does on a webpage or they just won't use it.

I had high hopes that WebM/VP9 would finally get rid of the crap and make a single easy to use standard that all could adopt but without easy to use video tools that make videos that can be used in as many places as H.264 in MP4 containers? Its just going nowhere, it'll be another Theora or Dirac.

Comment: When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 149

In my opinion governments should require that their sites are passing the HTML Validator and CSS validator tests.

Genuine questions: Who do you think that would help, and why?

This kind of validation can be useful if you need to follow a standard for something to work. If browsers all followed proper de jure standards then this would offer a useful benefit for compatibility, particularly forward compatibility with future browsers.

Unfortunately, most of the major browsers today do not do this at all consistently. Even some of the people writing the standards have basically given up. (HTML5 "living standard"? Seriously? If it changes arbitrarily then it's not a standard.)

The de facto standards that actually matter are how real browsers behave, which dictate whether your page looks right in the browsers your visitors are using today. Nothing else you do today is guaranteed to work tomorrow without regular attention anyway, which is foolish regression from the situation a few years ago for which we can thank Google and Mozilla, but it's the reality all the same.

In my entire career doing Web work -- which is measured in decades -- I'm not sure I have ever seen an example where a project was objectively better off because it routinely enforced having valid mark-up and stylesheets. I have, however, seen plenty of cases where someone has deliberately deviated from W3C standards for a specific, useful reason.

For example, Google have been known to omit mark-up that they were sure wasn't necessary in any browser in order to save a few bytes. Multiply those bytes by a bazillion visitors to their site every day and that's a lot of traffic saved overall. Another common case is trendy MVC frameworks like Angular, which often use non-standard attributes on HTML elements for their own purposes. They could use standard "data-*" attributes, but once you've got a few of those sitting on many elements in your mark-up, it's just noise and excess weight, so they use their own prefix for namespacing instead. And yet, I don't see anyone claiming that either Google's search engine or Angular as a JS framework have failed as a result of these heinous crimes...

Comment: Re:The butting edge (Score 1) 42

by hairyfeet (#49359583) Attached to: Toshiba Announces 3D Flash With 48 Layers

You brought up the Steam hardware survey? You might want to look at the sizes of the latest game releases. 35GB isn't even surprising anymore, and several 50GB+ games have already been released and even on a fast connection a game that size? Gonna take awhile to download so unless you wanna have to wait hours just to play a game drives will only be going up.

That doesn't even count those that are recording pictures and videos, HD adds up ya know, and those ripping their DVD or BD collections gonna need space, hell lots of reasons for having more space and even a lot of the new laptops are sporting 750GB-1TB drives so I really don't see many being happy with only having 250GB or less, SSD or not.

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?