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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fonts are too small (Score 2, Insightful) 198 198

I'm not a Mac user who likes staring at the shiny toolbar renderings and 3D compositing effects while watching billable hours go by.

Nor am I, I'm a Mac user who gets on with his work. Congratulations on making wild generalisations based on the default animation style of a persons window manager...

Comment: Re:Yet Another Reason (Score 1) 88 88

There are already abundant reasons not to give away your usage data to anyone who wants it; this just provides one more.

Please explain why you'd rather not reveal your referrer data. (New example from TFA aside.)
Working with web analytics, I can say referrer information is extremely useful, and not in a way which would lead you to any downsides, that I can think of at least.

(Not trolling, I'm genuinely interested...)

Comment: Re:I have a better idea (Score 1) 220 220

And gues wat? NOBODY visits any web site because it's "cool".

You're so wrong with this I don't know where to begin. The server logs from the company I work for, with their millions of hits and millions of £/€ in revenue strong suggest that you're utterly, irrecoverably wrong.

GP hit it perfectly the first time.

Comment: Re:Compared to flash... (Score 1) 321 321

I did read it, the difference between you and I is that I understood what I was reading.

The original particle engine was ported from a Flex/AS3 project that weâ(TM)ve created to javascript. Weâ(TM)re using processing.js for particle rendering on canvas which is a very useful graphics library created by John Resig.

Processing.js is used to render Processing code, a subset of Java, not JavaScript. FFS, if you're going to accuse someone of not RTFM, at least be sure you did so yourself.

Comment: Re:Compared to flash... (Score 2, Interesting) 321 321

The demo uses processing.js - essentially a Java library. Whether this has any more utility than Flash (remembering that the flash of today is not the monstrosity most of /. seems to remember and think it still is) could be debated, but it's definitely more in line with standards compliance.

Comment: Re:SOMEONE buy a copy for the /. coders! (Score 1) 171 171

Posting is certainly faster for me than it used to be before they switched to AJAX. It just looks like crap.

Really? It takes AGES to preview a comment, I'm thinking 10-20 seconds, during which time you can't scroll down or do anything else (well you can, you'd just have to remember to scroll back up). At least with the vanilla html version you could open a new tab, and I don't remember having any issues with speed back then.

The rest of the site is great though - keyboard navigation for comments is something I really miss when on other sites now.

Comment: Re:IE doesn't support font-face (Score 1) 378 378

That won't fly with my clients. You provide a design, they agree to it, then you build it and it looks different in their browser? Well then you didn't* deliver what you sold.

* as they see it. You can argue the semantics of whether delivering a site that works in all other modern browsers counts 'til you're blue in the mouth, but it's all academic.

Comment: Re:IE doesn't support font-face (Score 1) 378 378

I see no reason IE should hold everyone else back
All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again...
Despite huge gains made by other browsers, IE remains the most popular out there. If you're working on a commercial website, it is not viable to say "oh, fuck IE!", however much I'd like to.

Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.