Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment My own mother. Geez... (Score 1) 924

I have never, ever noticed this, not in a single movie. Talking on the phone would definitely be a problem, but I've never seen this either.

My own freaking mother did this once in a theater and talked for 2-3 minutes. My father and I were appalled. IT was embarrassing, and she didn't really understand that what she did was wrong at first.

Frankly I don't really give a shit if people are texting or surfing on their phone during the movie. I'm looking ahead at the screen. I find it hard to believe that it should really bother someone that much.

Not all of us have tunnel vision, and cell phone screens are bright. Someone texting out of the corner of your eye can be very distracting even if you can't see the screen and only see the glow, especially in stadium-style theaters where multiple rows are easily visible. Plus, even phones on vibrate make distracting noise when text after text comes in.

Comment Re:Faraday cage (Score 1) 924

Well, although I don't believe in the whole "24/7 connectivity is required" mindset (somehow society survived for thousands of years before it became an option), if you insist on being connected at all times, a theatre that implements this wouldn't be an option for you. Your options would be to patronize a different theatre, or choose a different form of entertainment.

Comment Re:why? (Score 1) 778

Javascript is supposed to be sandboxed in all modern browsers, but that doesn't make it perfect.

And Java was supposed to be in a safe sandbox as well. And anyone here should know about the variety of Java exploits out there and the constant patching to stay ahead of them.

Trusting a sandbox is stupid.
You also need a way to globally deny the option of running the code in the first place.

Comment Re:why? (Score 4, Insightful) 778

What exactly was "stupid" about ActiveX aside from potential malicious code (either directly or via overflows) that was either enabled by default or presented to the user with a "just click yes so the website will work" style input box?

Isn't the part about enabling malicious code by default stupid enough?

Firefox "avoided" this by not implementing ActiveX but most or all of the functionality was recreated in Javascript, giving it basically the exact same level of "stupid" with the benefit of having learned from about 10 years of exploits.

It's more of the "globally disabled EXCEPT for a whitelist maintained by the user".

It's the security methodology that is the difference.
Global enable vs global deny.

And Microsoft had the exact same reasoning behind their global enable. It makes it easier for THIRD PARTIES to present their content in the way that they want to the user.

That's almost acceptable when those THIRD PARTIES are trustworthy.

But those THIRD PARTIES could just as easily be crackers. And why make it easier for crackers to run their code on your computer in the way that they want to?

Comment Graceful degradation (Score 1) 778

Any web developer worth his pay should already be coding with graceful degradation in mind. CSS and Javascript should fail gracefully on less capable (or deliberately secured) browsers. Failure to do so may leave people with very minimal browsers, like the deafblind, unable to use a site. It also shuts out people with older browsers, and the days of "This site best viewed in Internet Explorer 6 at a resolution of 1440 x 800" are best left buried and gone.

Comment Re:why? (Score 3, Informative) 778

Are there still security issues with having JS enabled?

One of the main reasons I switched to Firefox in the beginning was because they seemed to understand that NOT doing something stupid was preferable to layers and layers of patches for the stupidity.

IE had ActiveX and such. It was stupid. It was a security issue. It was almost impossible to avoid.

Firefox avoided the entire security issue by allowing functionality to be disabled. While you cannot be 100% certain that XYZ feature had no security issues (or even that there were security issues) you knew that disabling it rendered the question moot.

If your site requires JavaScript or Flash or whatever then I can temporarily enable them just for your site if you can convince me that the risk is worth your content.

Comment Re:Not for hourly workers they don't. (Score 1) 1103

But I disagree that there is very little income mobility. I found there is quite a bit of income mobility. I was making just under min-wage... hmm 10 years ago. Now I'm making more in a week than I did in a month before.

Your anecdote does not trump statistics. Inter-generational income mobility is the standard measure, and in the US roughly 40% of people born to the top or bottom 20% will stay in that bracket. A country with true mobility would have a 20% chance of staying in any 20% bracket, and countries like Denmark and Norway come pretty close to that.

The US ranks behind France, Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark in income mobility. (And those are just countries I have stats for. The UK was the only country worse than the US in the numbers I've seen for developed nations.) The US is less "the land of opportunity" than much of Europe.

That said, your experience with part of the problem being cultural seems spot on. Not all the barriers in the US are imposed from the outside of people, and there is some rather rank class envy that our inequality has helped foster that turns to excuse-making. Those attitudes do nothing to help people any more than any other form of resentment.

Slashdot Top Deals

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.

Working...