Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Troll much? (Score 1) 302

by ObsessiveMathsFreak (#47813735) Attached to: You Got Your Windows In My Linux

Well it does solve some problems, just not problems many server administrators largely cared about while creating problems some systems administrators really do care about.

Well, if the project really is an NSA backed obfuscation of Linux a la SELinux, then confusing sysadmins and hampering their ability to control their own systems would be less of a bug and more of a feature.

Comment: Re:Window size and pixel density in what header? (Score 1) 137

by tepples (#47813093) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

also, browsers can resize. It's not the server's job

It's the server's job if the user doesn't want to have to download an ultra-high-resolution image over a metered connection. It also used to be the server's job back when web browsers insisted on using nearest neighbor resampling instead of bilinear or bicubic resampling.

We don't have a bandwidth shortage.

You appear not to know what it's like to be stuck on the 10 GB per month cap of wireless (satellite or cellular) home Internet access.

If you know it's a mac or a PC, you know it's got a desktop range of pixels.

But is that 1024 pixels wide with huge distracting white areas on both sides when viewed on a 2560 pixel monitor, or is it 2560 pixels wide with complete inability to see the entire image at once on a 1024 pixel monitor like the one in my laptop?

Likewise any particular smartphone.

A tablet held in landscape orientation runs the same operating system as a smartphone held in portrait orientation, despite the latter having only about one-third the horizontal width.

Don't resize images with the viewport. That's very annoying. They should reflow with the window according to the browser's settings. If you set a constant width, then you're asking for scroll bars if the window can't fit that width.

So what should a designer who doesn't want horizontal scrollbars do?

HTML was intended as the content provider; the browser intended to be the content formatter

And CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) was supposed to be the instructions that the content formatter follows.

using only hints -- lines, paragraphs, font styling, etc. The closer you can get to that in web page design

I imagine that as of 2014, most people would not prefer that most web pages look like Barry T. Smith's MFing Web Site. They would consider the default styling that a browser applies to the MFing Web Site to be unprofessional.

Every time some whackjob decides that menus should drop or windows should open when my mouse pointer crosses some object, I curse.

How would you prefer that a menu be opened while JavaScript is turned off? To the best of my knowledge, CSS supports only hover-to-show, not click-to-show.

Every time I run into some page (like's) that won't run its cart or checkout through the usual standard ports and protocols

Could you describe what nonstandard "ports and protocols" uses? I tried to buy a coral to test what you describe, but it required me to create a username and password before I could check out. Is the need to register before checking out part of the problem you describe? I do know that some manufacturers, such as Games Workshop, have a policy of forbidding online stores from selling their products through a standard shopping cart.

Comment: Hover menus work with CSS + noscript (Score 1) 137

by tepples (#47813001) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

That, and "hover" menus and windows are the #1 reason why I surf away from web pages.

Tip to "designers": If I didn't CLICK on it, I didn't WANT it, and that means ITS IN MY FUCKING WAY

Perhaps the difference comes from limits in CSS. A menu that opens on mouseover works with CSS turned on and JavaScript turned off; a menu that opens on click requires JavaScript.

Comment: A modern solution (Score 1) 481

I read the speech yesterday, seemed rather tame compared to the hate US politicians regularly spout. His main point was that Ukraine must negotiate a ceasefire directly with the rebels. Russia has the upper hand, yet it is the Russians who are pressing for a diplomatic solution, Ukraine (and presumably their western sponsors) are refusing to negotiate with "terrorists". The bit about nukes was not a threat it was a defiant warning to the west, "don't fuck with Russia", it was made in the context of a plea to the west to help solve the dispute in a "modern way", ie: through diplomacy.

Putin has demonstrated he has a stronger influence over the rebels than the west has over Ukraine, a few days ago he averted a potential slaughter by calling on the rebels to open a corridor so that surrounded and outnumbered Ukrainian troops could withdraw, sadly I haven't seen any reports of efforts to defuse the situation by the Ukrainian government or the west. The consistent response of Ukraine to military defeats in various towns and cities has been to shell the people they are trying to "liberate" with heavy artillery. Such actions do nothing but kill civilians, destroy infrastructure, and ultimately swell the ranks of the rebels.

I was born in 1959 at the height of the cold war, the enthusiasm of the western media to label Putin as a modern day Hitler is troubling, the fact that a large chunk of western society believes it, is frightening. The village idiot who's running things down here in Oz has been thrusting his chin in the air and sprouting macho bullshit, he's threatened to stop Putin attending the G20 meeting in Brisbane. He does not represent my views, my view is that our government should be supporting the call Putin made in the speech for a "modern" solution to what is essentially a proxy war between the nuclear heavyweights.

Comment: Re:The guidelines used to be paywalled (Score 1) 121

by tepples (#47811911) Attached to: Apple Reveals the Most Common Reasons That It Rejects Apps

It seems like that page is part of an argument from some other subject on a page that we did not get to read.

The Turing completeness disproof is actually related to recurring debates on Slashdot over the definition of phrases like "personal computer" and "general-purpose computer". I say something is a "personal computer" when the person who owns it determines what computing is done on it, and it's not "general-purpose" if specific identifiable purposes are forbidden. This includes a device running Android because of "Unknown sources" and adb install, but not a device running iOS without paying the recurring fee for the developer program. It includes a PC running Windows, OS X, or common GNU/Linux distributions, but not a major video game console.

Comment: Guideline 15.5 and Turing completeness (Score 1) 121

by tepples (#47811653) Attached to: Apple Reveals the Most Common Reasons That It Rejects Apps

[The disproof of Turing completeness using Russian roulette is] a joke right?

Sort of. I've been trying to describe the rules of a few different games, and it turned out that Russian roulette and Hi Ho! Cherry-O are in the same family. I made a Russian roulette homebrew game for the NES as a quick-and-dirty test for reading the trigger switch on an NES Zapper. It lets the player pull the trigger to roll a virtual d6 and be eliminated on a roll of 1. The development process inspired me to make a pencil drawing of six figures gambling with a toy gun.

Someone else on the NESdev forum ported an NES emulator for Mac called "Macifom" to iOS so that the developer of an NES homebrew game can sell the game on the App Store by including it with Macifom in an app. My thought process might have been as follows: "Would Russian Roulette in Macifom be rejected? If so, why? What would need to be cut out? And what useful theorems can I prove from this in order to make points on Slashdot about iOS not being for everyone?" I guess the question becomes how much like Russian roulette a game would have to be in order to get rejected for violating Guideline 15.5.

Comment: Re:Which site "collapses"? (Score 1) 137

by tepples (#47811429) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster
AnandTech has the same problem as NCSA: the transition from three columns to two is placed too close to the 1024px mark, causing a "snapped" window on a 1920x1080 pixel display to use a jarringly different layout. I guess they had to do this because the About / Advertising / Bench line and the Trending Topics line are too tightly packed for any sort of flexibility. The Verge has distinct three-, two-, and one column layouts, but they're visually consistent and on the whole no less jarring than what you might expect if you resized an old-skool liquid layout like Slashdot classic's comment pages between the full width of a 1920x1080 display and half the width.

Comment: Mashable sucks in other ways too (Score 1) 137

by tepples (#47811255) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster

Yeah, I see the problems you point out with Mashable's front page in Firefox at 500-1024px, and I agree with you that Mashable is doing it wrong. But those are fixable problems if only Mashable management had the sense to correct the design. You're not claiming that the very opportunity to do width transitions wrong justifies removing the media queries feature entirely, are you?

Anyway, badly done viewport width transitions are consistent with other problems I see on Mashable, such as that damn "infinite scrolling". I think infinite scrolling is a crock of $#!+ on desktop; the scrollbar control just wasn't designed for it. Give me defined pages any day of the week. Literally. Just give me a page for each date so that I can link to the collection of stories that the site ran on a particular day (or week or month for a less busy site).

Comment: NCSA is doing it wrong (Score 1) 137

by tepples (#47811117) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster
Ouch. That transition from 2 columns to 1 is so close to 1024px it sickens me. Even a browser window snapped to half of a 1920x1080 screen, or a user of a 1024x600px netbook whose scroll bars are set just wider than normal, would get the 1-column layout with a hamburger menu on the front page of NCSA's web site.

Comment: Re:Which site "collapses"? (Score 1) 137

by tepples (#47811061) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster
On the front page of, I don't especially see what's wrong with what appears to be a fairly predictable switch from a 2-column layout to a 1-column layout around 750px. Is horizontal scrolling really better? Or should it have been using the 1-column layout in the first place for all screen sizes?

Comment: Re:Which site "collapses"? (Score 1) 137

by tepples (#47811043) Attached to: New HTML Picture Element To Make Future Web Faster
The front page of Porsche USA isn't that bad in my testing (from about 500px to 1024px wide). Things get put in more or fewer columns, but that's similar to what happens to text in any liquid layout. The most drastic changes are the layout of the "Build & Find" menus near the bottom below about 500px and the addition of a "hamburger" menu at the top below about 700px.

Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!