Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Submission + - The Electronic 4th (

drumcat writes: Finally, a petition at the new White House site is attempting to tackle the nearly-impossible. It looks like someone wants the government to actually define electronic rights. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen, but for those at Slashdot who want these things seen, it seems like this might be a new hope.

Comment YOU encrypt it first (Score 1) 333

This is simple. If you use a service like dropbox, simply house an encrypted "disk" on the site. You can put anything you want in it, but dropbox doesn't have the key. Sure, if you put a naked file up there, and they encrypt it for you, *they* have the key. If you're that worried about your files, it's probably not a good place for them.

Comment Which state? (Score 1) 705

I didn't realize there was Federal Sales Tax. They have the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but the Constitution prohibits its tax:

Art I, Sec 9. "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."

Comment Re:HTML *was* simple (Score 1) 298

We replaced B with STRONG and I with EM which are effectively the exact some thing. If you think its different, sorry you're confused.

Tell me why exactly we needed to change tags?

Explain to me how change the name of a tag from B to STRONG actually made it so your screen reader worked better. I'm pretty sure if it knew the difference between B and STRONG it could do whatever it want with text and wouldn't care if the tag was B or STRONG.

Some douche's in a commitee sat down and decided the B was a display thing and STRONG was a speech thing and they are different and should be handled as such ... except ... they are used for the exact same thing. Same with EM and I.

An intelligent solution would have been much simpler ... 'when people use B they mean to make that part strong and stand out, lets treat it as such.' instead of 'hey, lets create a new tag, that is visually identical to B out of the box, but has a different name, so that way we can identify it ... unlike bold where we have no way to identify it at all!'

EM and STRONG are shining example of retarded changes to a protocol because some people involved in the discussion don't have a clue.

This is what I was trying to say. You, sir, nailed it.

Comment HTML *was* simple (Score 4, Insightful) 298

Remember when it was ok to use a "b" tag, and no one scoffed? How about table layouts? It's funny, the new standards aren't always better. This is why a format "of the people" isn't going anywhere. I could teach my grandparents how to edit HTML 10 years ago. Now, not so much. Is that better? I'd argue, no. It's not that editing is hard; it's not. The problem is that we're turning the browser into an application-level container. HTML should be more focused on making layouts easier, and faster. It should not be focused on animation. This is where MS Word has fallen off a cliff. If you want more adoption, focus HTML on what actually is important - layout that's understandable to the masses.

Comment Just be super-upfront (Score 4, Interesting) 608

Look, PBS has ads now. They still require donations, but they have ads. Just keep the bar very high, and the disclosure very clear. Maybe you make it so that companies can advertise, but cannot advertise with any product specificity, and that all images must carry a small (a) sign to signify it's an ad? It's not impossible. Look, many companies advertise on PBS to improve their image. Wikipedia can position itself the same way... as an image builder. Just get past the begging though. It's old. If your idea is *that* good, you shouldn't have a problem getting ad money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disobedience: The silver lining to the cloud of servitude. -- Ambrose Bierce