Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Good for CVS (Score 1) 372

I'd venture to say that most people with loved ones will say they are worth far more than $600. Think really big numbers and maybe even something like "there is no price". The problem with cost here is a practical one. There still isn't enough of it for so many even when compromises are made. Individuals and institutions aren't buying one unit. Individuals and families, in particular, apparently are buying multiple EpiPens so that they are always near. So, it becomes a much different total cost as one multiplies $600 versus a unit cost of $110.

Comment Re: YES (Score 1) 313

There is more to cost than what shows in the ticket's price. While not necessarily easy to measure, hassle and being left irritated are a part of the total cost. I'd like to see airlines and businesses in general explore pricing that truly supports improving customer experience while still remaining practical for most. Perhaps the increase in price wouldn't be all that much and worth the benefits if marketed correctly.

Comment Re:1980s/1990s online service redux (Score 1) 158

Before AOL flooded the world with install CDs, they did this with 3.5" diskettes. If I only knew back then that acetone could be used to join ABS to itself, I would have hung on to many of them for uses beyond the occasional use for storage.

Comment Re:Not sure you have a lot of options? (Score 1) 222

Those videos may be updates occasionally with this done remotely. They may be served via a more sophisticated system where content is assigned as a channel with schedules all managed centrally. We have a system with 50+ player computers distributed across NA sites serving many more displays that shows locallized and national content. We refer to it as eTV, and the content is managed by communications folks both locally and corp folks and supported by IT. So, while what the computers do all day is single task, these must be on a network. Now, risk could be reduced through network configs on the hardware side that restricts what connections can be made among them.

Comment Re:Yet another unneeded feature! (Score 1) 75

Yeah it is a web browser, and one of the oldest job of a web browser is to turn image files and markup into a visual representation. And if you want to somehow capture this visual representation as an image, the best way to do it is through the browser, since the broswer is the authority on how the pages are being rendered. Previously you had to download an add-on to do this, which is a bit of a pain, and something the browser should support natively, if for no other reason than it is trivially easy for the browser to simply provide the data it already has. No the browser shouldn't do everything. It should only do things that are browser related. This is browser related.

The article sure seems to describe what simply is a cropping-capable screen capture tool tied to a cloud-based, social web back-end. I believe this is another damn data grab and one disguised by a so-called needed feature. Even if not a grab per se, it is one more way to get the user-base locked into cloud-dependent services and applications. I'm certain that the mainstream user doesn't need or want this and that the user isn't taking and indexing screen grabs. If this was capable of dumping the entire page as rendered to something like a single PDF or image file, it might be useful since, as you've suggested, the browser would be best to do this. It seems to not do this, so why even add the feature?

Why add the PageShot feature to the browser when the OS already allows the user to easily capture what's on the screen and has an image editor? A side from the OS, countless add-on apps are available for installing that will grabbing screen captures all day long through the click-drag-and-highlight model that will do this regardless of what is running or displayed? While I am not a big fan of the extension model mostly because people attempt to make the browser do too much, the browser's core functionality should be supplemented this way to keep the application's file space and resource footprint as small as possible. It also keeps the browser's dev team focused on the core functionality. Let third parties cater to niches.

I have gotten by just fine in Windows with PRNT-SCRN and ALT-PRINT-SCRN. For other OSs, its just another key combo.

Comment Yet another unneeded feature! (Score 1, Insightful) 75

This is another unneeded feature that is to be implemented when resources should be focused on the core purpose of the application. It is a web browser before it is anything else and, in my opinion, should get back to just being this. I don't want any one application to have everything in the kitchen sink as long as I can run multiple applications.

Comment Re:Meanwhile in a parallel universe (Score 1) 267

This is functionality that nearly all, if not all, users want and will actively use.

There's at least one person that is in the no-tabs camp: Me! I do understand that many people like and use the tabs feature of browsers. I just am not among them and don't like tabs for two reasons, mostly. The tab bar makes for too much wasted vertical space on low vertical resolution displays like those in many laptops. Also, I like seeing a button on the taskbar for the apps and windows I have open, and using tabs within a single browser window doesn't make for all the buttons I want. So, this means I also don't like Windows' taskbar button combining feature.

Comment Re:Old Habits Die Hard (Score 1) 442

That would force them to make ABP a proxy server

While I do believe that ad-blocking will ultimately be done by a proxy server and have said this before, ABP as software as it is now is dependent on the browser's add-on architecture. The company/developer behind it could, of course, evolve both their core product and release something entirely different such as a ad-filtering proxy [service]. As for Mozilla and Firefox, yes, people will jump ship if it loses support for ad-blocking tech. If Mozilla were to cave, I'd expect the other major browsers to do so as well. Before a suggestion is made that people can always use a ad-block supporting browser growing from a fork, Jane and Joe Mainstream isn't even going to know that this is an option, let alone going to do it.

Comment Re: Old Habits Die Hard (Score 1) 442

Would you buy a car that slammed on the brakes

Of course not. Now, do understand the inconvenience and annoyance of ads as they are now and have been hasn't reached the level that such behavior of a car is at. The bigger problem is that it won't just be one make or model or browser, all major offerings will adopt this type of practice in a collusion-wrapped way if it serves their interest financially. Such a change may bring additional revenue or reduce legal expenses. Either way, it is money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Forty two.