Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

As covered on soylent last weekend:
http://soylentnews.org/article...

I've been here a long time and didn't switch the last two times. I'll switch this time and will support in whatever way I can.

Thank you!

The quick response isn't a reflection of how easy it is to change a page. It's a reflection of the millions of dollars government agencies have spent preparing for every potential shutdown over the past few years.

Long before the shutdown happened, government agencies stopped doing the people's work and instead started to prepare for a lapse in funding. Government inefficiency caused by the same people who are tasked with oversight to prevent wasteful spending.

The web sites were able to be turned on quickly, in part, because it started happening *before* the president signed HR 2775. OPM ordered government employees back to work the day before it was signed.

Yea, but it doesn't work. Google simply isn't able to do text searches anymore. They can return as many fast half-assed results as I can stand, but not one single accurate result.

Wanna get a list of pages that don't contain the test altavist? Simple just search for -altavista. Yea, doesn't work.

It's still the best you could hope for. Sure wish Google still had that technology.

If my search criteria isn't on the page, I don't want to see it. Can't google get some of that cutting edge 90's tech back? They have smart people, right?

The same reason everybody else has a rough time with it. It's hard. You wouldn't roll your own cryptography, don't roll your own date calculations.

"Denial-of-Service Attack Found In Btrfs File-System" didn't happen. A vulnerability was found. That's a big deal, no reason to obscure it.

Can Google invent a text search feature? You know, where you type words into a text box and Google returns a list of pages that contain those words? That would be cool. Can Google work on that next?

Gandi rocks, no doubt about it. However, they cannot protect a domain owner from the US government.

I have my domain there because they respect the rights of a domain owner far more than other registrars, but there's nothing they can do if the US government wants a domain in a US-hosted top level domain. When it comes .com, .net, or .org, NSI is all that matters. And unfortunately, they don't care about domain owners.

Sure, but it's not really a newspaper, it's a glorified blog. This was a big win for everybody involved.
If the snarkiness was in the print version of NYT, it would be noteworthy. As is, not much more than a cat fight.

The author thinks he owns facts. It doesn't work like that. What a baby.

I'm not sure which 'forever' you're thinking of. If the location bar was for searching, there wouldn't be a need for that little search box to the right of it.

Before the awesome bar, the closest thing to search in the location bar was automatically adding 'www.' and '.com' to bare names. Even that went away for many years due to the whitehouse.com brouhaha.

I'll let the 'typing in URLs is bad' pass. We all know that's silly.

What's so awful about the Awesome Bar is that it has partially repurposed the location bar, causing the UI to be inconsistent.

In all cases before the awesome bar, the location bar was used for URL's. After the awesome bar, the location bar is almost always used for URL's, but during text entry it is used to search both URL's and web page titles.

An inconsistent UI us a bad UI. The awesome bar introduces inconsistency into the firefox UI. It's bad.

Disabling the awesome bar solves part of the problem. However, it doesn't restore the functionality the location bar had before it was replaced by the awesome bar.

It's not just the the awesome sucks. It's that mozilla removed something that worked and replaced it with something that doesn't. Turning off the part that doesn't work is insufficient to solve the problem.

Have they dumped the awesome bar yet? It makes my browsing more difficult nearly every day.

What are they going to do next? Replace the menubar with a start button? Oh, wait...