Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment merging threads (Score 1) 1826

Well, I am going to throw it out there, I actually came up with this idea years ago but only implemented a version of it for a client of mine, who decided not to use the feature in the forum that we created for their system. However just a thought, maybe it could be done here and maybe it could have a positive result.

The idea is that often the same question is posed or a statement is made across multiple threads and the answer to all of those could be the same exact one, so why repost the same comment over and over?

The design idea that I came up with and we implemented was to mark a number of comments and then write one reply instead of many replies. Then each one of those parent comments would have a reply to it, that would indicate that this is a merged reply.

Leaving more comments on this merged reply actually moves the conversation to the merged thread instead of keeping individual replies to the merged comment in their individual threads.

I think it's useful, others may disagree.

Oh, also metamoderation - it doesn't work here. People really should have to justify 'Troll' or 'Flamebait' or 'Overrated' because it's easy to use those simply to shut down an opinion.

Comment Waiting for a reaction... (Score -1, Flamebait) 204

I can guess what the reaction is going to be by an average person and I must say that it is justified to react in a reactive manner.

I used to advocate only for banning of copyrights and patents here (and everywhere I can) but I must admit, this makes me want to include trademarks into that list as well, at least trademarks on common words.

This is about using government oppression (a redundant statement, government is oppression, that's all it is) to prevent people from putting titles on things such as: 'mom reacts to ... a spider'.

I mean 'American funniest home videos' can most definitely claim prior art and really anybody who is older than these guys can claim prior act, that's what 1st of April is about - reactions.

But of-course there will be those who will say: banning copyrights, patents, trademarks and really any government protection for things is insane, who would ever create anything if government wouldn't protect them. I will tell you this: you are the scorn of this civilization, brainless zombies. Government is oppression, all it does it steals, it doesn't give you anything because it has nothing to give (at least nothing it didn't steal first). Using government for market protections is using the biggest Mafia guy around for market protection, it is morally wrong and economically stupid at every level and it is counterproductive for the society.

Comment Re:Being an analyst means... (Score 1) 428

Apple's non-iPhone revenue is comparable to Microsoft's *total* revenue.

As a guy who bought a 128K Mac in 1984 and has been with them all this time (except for a brief period in late 90s) I would have never dreamed a statement like that would someday be true (and oh do I wish I had, and bought the stock!)

Comment Re:Remember the NASA Wind Turbines? (Score 1) 179

Current blades are trucked in one piece (per blade) which is impressive to see. Three of them were parked on I-5 outside of Patterson, California a few months ago. There are a lot of net videos and photos which convey the scale.

Even at the current size they can't get through many highway interchanges and local intersections. The larger ones won't be able to ship in one piece at all.

Comment Remember the NASA Wind Turbines? (Score 4, Interesting) 179

NASA Wind Turbines approached this scale in the '80's. Unfortunately, this was a previously-unexplored area of aerodynamics for NASA, and they had mechanical stress and noise problems (including subsonics) and were all demolished. I think there was one near Vallejo, CA being taken down when I got to Pixar in '87, and one in Boone, NC, which famously rattled windows and doors.

The art has since improved. I took a ride to the top of the turbine at Grouse Mountain, that was fun! That's the only one I have heard of where you can actually get to see it from the top.

Comment Re:Get Perspectives (Score 2) 216

It's not about whether a site is dangerous per se as much as whether a site is as dangerous as a reasonable person would expect when keying in the URL.

- that's complete nonsense. A person 'keying in' (most just click) a URL expects to get to the site. A browser actively trying to prevent a user from getting to that site based on the fact that the certificate for the site is not what the browser company decides is in the best interest of the company (AFAIC) is not an indicator of the site being secure or insecure.

In most cases nobody is hit with MITM attacks, however ALL communications are stolen and recorded by NSA and the like. It is better to be on an https site with a self signed certificate, when a government is listening to all communications to filter it by keywords than to be on http and not be warned by the browser about anything.

I am not advocating treating https with self signed certificate exactly the same as https with a certificate that some 'authority' verifies. I am saying that a browser treating a site with a self signed certificate as if it is a virus while happily letting people navigate the rest of the http web is not for the benefit of a user.

Comment Re:Get Perspectives (Score 1) 216

I am not talking about myself, I am talking about every user that gets these errors and decides that the site is somehow dangerous in a way that the user doesn't understand, more dangerous than a http site, while in reality it is not more dangerous. Setting up extensions to fix broken browser problems is all great, whatever. My point on this story here stays: GOOD.

Since FF team can't figure out what to do next without looking at Chrome and other 'amazing' browsers first, this likely means that eventually FF will have the same thing Chrome is about to have in it and it will also put a big red 'birdy' near an http site. At least we are going to start achieving some parity, which was the point of my initial comment.

Comment Re:True sense of insecurity (Score 1) 216

You are correct, I was wrong, checked it again, I can see https in the URL.

This does not change my point, FF should treat HTTPS that FF doesn't like the same as it treats HTTP with a detailed explanation that you get by clicking on the grey globe or the padlock sign.

'Unsecured' (from the perspective of the browser ) HTTPS or unsecured (because it is) HTTP, treating one as if it is something to be avoided while not even remotely bringing up attention against the other is a political and/or a financial statement, not a technical one.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI