Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 132

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:When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 132

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:He's good. (Score 1) 143

by Grishnakh (#49362191) Attached to: Prison Inmate Emails His Own Release Instructions To the Prison

I don't think he's calling all banks everywhere evil, he's really talking about the big banks. They are evil: they wrecked the economy, then got paid for it with taxpayer dollars.

There are other banks that aren't so bad, but they're usually much smaller, confined to one state or local area usually. Credit unions are also usually pretty good.

But banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and worst of all HSBC are evil through-and-through.

As for regulation, that'd be nice, wouldn't it? Too bad we can't have that.

Comment: Re:You are wrong (Score 1) 143

by Grishnakh (#49362183) Attached to: Prison Inmate Emails His Own Release Instructions To the Prison

That does not make banks "criminal organizations," equivalent to drug mafias.

Complete bullshit; this is a lie.

HSBC has been laundering money for drug cartels for quite a while now, and nothing's been done about it, and no one is prosecuting them. Money laundering IS a crime, so this by definition makes this bank a criminal organization.

You are a liar.

Comment: Re:OMG america is stupid (Score 1, Insightful) 122

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: When did validation actually help anyone? (Score 1) 132

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: JoCo...calling the future (Score 1) 54

by Overzeetop (#49361357) Attached to: Ikea Refugee Shelter Entering Production

Ikea: just some oak and some pine and a handful of Norsemen
Ikea: selling furniture for college kids and divorced men
Everyone has a home
But if you don't have a home you can buy one there

I can now wait for the day that some idiot shows up at my office asking me to certify/upgrade their Ikea shelter the bought on CraigsList for use as a permanent dwelling.

Comment: How is it a "rite of passage"? (Score 4, Insightful) 35

by khasim (#49361155) Attached to: Startups Increasingly Targeted With Hacks

They're getting cracked because they're not paying attention to their security.

After resetting users passwords, Twitch initially introduced longer password character requirements, but had to dial back its new 20-character password length requirement to 8 characters after users complained.

Fuck you! If you cannot detect and mitigate a brute force attack then hire someone who can.

Twitch also said it encrypted passwords, but warned that hackers might have been able to capture passwords in the clear as users were logging on.

And make sure you know the difference between encrypted and hashed.

Comment: Re:Boorish (Score 1) 633

by Grishnakh (#49360699) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Interesting. I'll be sure to avoid Mexican-made VWs then; I had suspected that. But as for taking production back to Wolfsberg, last I checked there were still lots of VWs made in Mexico.

I tend to hang onto my cars for a long time; so far I've had a Japanese-built Acura which was bulletproof, and now I have a Belgian-made Volvo which seems pretty bulletproof too (even though Belgium is not where it was designed.

Comment: Re:WIMPs (Score 1) 200

by ultranova (#49360023) Attached to: Dark Matter Is Even More of a Mystery Than Expected

That the thing about dark matter... it has a perfectly reasonable explanation (WIMPs). It's not that weird of a "thing".

I dunno. Usually when a theory requires more and more unseen entities over time it's a sign that it's time to replace the theory. We know General Relativity is incomplete, both because it doesn't take into account quantum effects and because it has internal contradictions - specifically, it assumes a continuous spacetime geometry but predicts non-continuous points (black hole singularities). Most likely Einstein simply missed some observer-specific assumption - for example, GR assumes mass-energy has an exact distribution rather than probabilistic one - and thus GR is not completely general.

A question I've had for a while... if space itself is being inflated (or any sort of mathematically equivalent scenario) - everything inflating in all directions at all scales - wouldn't there be some sort of weak radiation signal from electrons expanding into a higher energy state due to dark energy and then collapsing back down?

No, because a continuous force wouldn't drag electrons up and then let them drop back down. What it would do is alter orbital structure and energy levels. But how they'd be altered depends on how quantum mechanics and GR combine, which we don't currently know.

Comment: Re:Time to leave (Score 1) 233

It's probably not a matter of will, but of opportunity. The guy said he took work in a warehouse stacking boxes... how the hell do you expect him to afford an Altium license? Obviously, that's something you learn on someone else's dime. But if they're not willing to hire you because you don't know that tool, then you have a catch-22.

The end of labor is to gain leisure.