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


Forgot your password?

Comment HTML5Test is not a test of standardscompliance. (Score 3, Informative) 165

HTML5test is not a test of standards compliance; the title is misleading. It's a wishlist of features, some of which are standardized, but many of which are not (or are not part of HTML5). For example, html5test doesn't (in general) test whether you've really implemented a feature correctly (or really - at all) it just uses feature detection to check whether you've claimed to implement a feature. Fortunately, browsers are never buggy and this distinction doesn't matter.

Then, html5test follows the whatwg's "living standard" instead of the less-cutting year-old actual standard html. This makes sense at first glance - we want to know which browsers support "new" features too! As a developer, that's great. As a score for a browser, that's questionable. Many features are added to the standard because one of the browsers initially experimented with a non-standard extension; lately that's been webkit/blink due to the mobile push, but previous names have included IE6. By *intent* the whatwg living spec is a few steps ahead of the browsers. What this means is that if you use this as a score is that you're going to penalize whoever is following the spec, and promote those leading the spec. That deserves at least a separate score.

Then, there are HTML5 features that are deprecated, like . The continued support for scores chrome two points, and edge+firefox none. Is that really what you wanted to know? I bet there are *lots* of deprecated features in old IE; if you're going to start counting those...

Then there's features like speech synthesis and recognition. Those aren't part of the spec, have never been part of the spec, yet they're worth 5 points together. Or worse, the Web SQL features, that have explicitly been rejected, also worth 5 points (only webkit-derived browsers support this).

Almost all of the point differences between browsers can be explained by features that are experimental, deprecated or rejected.

In short: don't use html5test. It's pointless.

Comment Re:Not useful without more data (Score 2) 97

Many laptops have a battery preservation mode which avoids full recharges. Long term storage (or worse, usage) at 100% capacity is damaging to a lithium ion battery, so limiting charge capacity to (e.g.) 50% the lifetime can be dramatically extended. It helps in any case, but it's particularly useful if your laptop is usually plugged in. Unfortunately, this feature is often hidden away somewhere, or requires an extra download - almost nobody uses it, which is a shame.

Comment Re:so, I'm in the more than 8 yrs ago camp (Score 1) 391

I've got a similar rig, but I'm using the seasonic 400W platinum power supply. It's similarly priced, but it's entirely fanless, and more efficient at typical loads. With just the iGPU, the machine - overclocked and overvolted - still only uses around 20W, which is just next to nothing. At full load it's not much over 100W, and you need to load the GPU and use AVX to even get it to 100W. It's enough for even fairly high end single card GFX builds, and, of course, it's silent.

I use the thermaltake HR22 CPU cooler, which is also fanless (If you want high overclocks, you can always add a fan).

Comment Re: meeses (Score 1) 361

The Performance MX really is brilliant - works on almost any surface; wireless with good range (I use it as a remote, too); rechargable but you can continue using it while charging since it just means plugging in a usb cable - brilliant!

Comment Re:Representative benchmarks? (Score 2) 132

Oh and one minor detail: did you see the final compiled code sizes and how much smaller the optimized versions are (esp. clang!). I'm willing to bet the entire benchmark just code "optimized away" by dead code elimination; and that's an entirely unrealistic situation... Also, where's the code? Is this reproducible?

The benchmark isn't worth anything.

Comment Re:I don't suppose... (Score 1) 622

I think there's some merit to blaming the reporter for being negligent. But it's important to note that that does not in any way, shape or form excuse the behavior of the police in this matter.

Frankly, I think individual officers in cases like these should be held personally responsible for infractions they commit, even if they're just following orders, and even if they didn't know any better. It happens all too frequently that some anonymous police or other organization gets blamed, and the consequences to anyone personally are then irrelevant at best. Perhaps some committee harasses those involved; or the police pays some fine (but that's really the taxpayers paying it, after all) - but at the end of the day, the actual people that in all likelihood intentionally violated other's rights get away scott free.

And there's no pushback from inside the organization, because, well, nobody ever got fired for following orders when there's even a whiff of plausible deniability here. Nobody is taking responsibility for their own actions; so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the police act irresponsibly and unethically despite the fact that most people involved only ever had the best of intentions. If you want it to be normal for the officers in a raid to question the need for it, the circumstances in which it is made, the force with which it is executed, or the damage that is done to those they raid, then there's got to be an incentive for officers to push back and do what's right. Right now, we reward officers for doing what's wrong and punish them for thinking and having a conscience, and that is deeply disturbing.

Comment Re:jerk (Score 1) 1440

So? even if true, that's only meaningful if less than 90% of the set of "people that drive and that text" text *while* driving. And that I seriously doubt.

In other words: the frequency of texting surely correlates with the frequency of texting while driving, but I doubt that after correcting for that texting while stopped predicts texting while driving very strongly.

Comment Re:Why bother with the panic? (Score 1) 163

Is it any less "armchair" to simply assume an article is valid without corroboration, or to assume this particular scientist is a fraud without actually checking?

Just because it's more easily said than done doesn't make it untrue - and I strongly suspect none of us particularly care about these specific results anyhow, so of course we'll just comment from afar without actually doing anything.

I mean, if this bothers you, do you have an alternative suggestion?

Slashdot Top Deals

If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?