Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Scientifically, the title is bogus (Score 1) 464

Indeed. It also obviously only applied if there are more than two lines. for n>2, there are n lines that are not the fastest, so odds are n:1 that you are not in the fastest line.
The real question is: when there are only 2 (open) lines (which is often at my local supermarkets) why are you still always in the slowest line? And if you change, why does the new one always grind to a complete stop?

Comment Danish newspapers claims Norwegian boy did it (Score 2, Informative) 122

According to this article http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitiken.dk%2Ftjek%2Fdigitalt%2F1065381%2Fnorsk-dreng-fik-twitter-i-knae%2F (google translated) it was a Norwegian boy who discovered the bug. Not that it really matters, I suppose...

Comment I smell FUD... (Score 3, Interesting) 269

My Portuguese isn't exactly good (working on it), so I can't tell if this is explained in the article, but as I've used resynthesizer before, I noticed that their results looked far worse than what I usually experience. I've only tested one image, but there GIMP performed *much* better than what that blog would let you believe. I resynthesized the same area in the large picture, so for comparison, look at the original compared to this - then contrast to the small version supposedly done by gimp in the bottom right corner: Original My attempt (warning: 2.7MB, saved as PNG to avoid further artifacts).

Comment Re:Good thing. (Score 1) 159

As I am curious, can a jetpack extension run a background timer independent of any window(as long as the application is running)?

Honestly, I don't know, but I imagine so.

Can a jetpack extension modify chrome elements and behaviours?

Yes. You can read more on the current version here: https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/sdk/0.1/docs/ specifically the glossary might be interesting for a quick overview.

Is it just supposed to become a sort of official greasemonkey?

It is supposed to be a much more powerful greasemonkey, with a strong security system.

Comment Re:Good thing. (Score 5, Informative) 159

I'm sorry, but most of your assertions are blatantly untrue.

1) Extensions created with Jetpack (the actual framework, not the prototype based on ideas from Ubiquity) have to a large extent the same powers as an old-style extension. There is a certain number of capabilities provided, but if you need more, you can write your own capabilities, share them, or indeed use others users shared capabilities.

2) As an official Jetpack Ambassador, and Ubiquity core developer (as previously mentioned, the base of some of the ideas for Jetpack), I can honestly say that I have never heard talks about ditching regular extensions, except from user-comments on sites like Slashdot. Indeed, many of us involved with the project have addressed this issue on several occasions.

3) The idea was never for "normal people" to make extensions, it was to widen the audience from a very few XUL developers (I believe the number is in the low end of 4-5000), to web-developers in general.

There are several interesting possibilities with this, amongst them companies using existing web developers in their employment to create work-flow enhancing extensions quickly, and letting website developers create new ways of interacting with their site. Especially in the latter case, the extensive security model in Jetpack compared with old-style extensions, and the ease of install/uninstall is paramount.

Best regards,
-- cers / Christian Sonne

Comment Speaking as a Jetpack Ambassador... (Score 2, Informative) 415

I can tell you that as far as I know, there are no plans to scrap the current extension system. The plan is to provide an easier way of developing extensions, that will be powerful enough for the vast majority of extensions, and easy enough to allow a far greater amount of people to take part in the process.

I believe much of this confusion could be alleviated if everyone concerned watched this video http://www.vimeo.com/8372101 (a talk on the topic by Aza Raskin, head of UX at Mozilla) - and for those who can't be bothered with it all, you can skip to 35:10 or read this rough transcript:

"The rough plan for where we're going with this, is that by Firefox 3.7, this will be baked into Firefox in some degree, so that's end of Q2. [snip] And by Firefox 4 we're really going to be pushing for making Jetpack or Jetpack enabled extensions the premier way of writing extensions, and while I don't think we're ever going to phase out the old model entirely [...] we're going to be pushing that almost everything happens inside of this." -- Aza Raskin

-- cers / Christian Sonne

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do: Pour a little Lavoris in the toilet." -- Comedian Jay Leno

Working...