Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Reinvent this, reinvent that. It's all still sh (Score 1) 266

" Maybe you should go back and use that and tell me if Firefox is any better than that version."

Nope, because WWW didn't leak memory like a fucking sieve. Firefox 32? Just like every iteration before it, from XP to Win 7, is a straight up piece of swiss cheese when it comes to memory. I actually moved back to IE.

"we might still be using that original version which was pretty crappy and difficult to use."

Funny, having installed it in a Windows 3.1 VM and tested it out, it's nowhere near as bad as you think, assuming you have the brains and intuition to find stuff.

"Thanks for playing."

Oh please, you weren't even a player in the first place. You were just a pawn.

I think you are getting a little confused.

Firstly if you are seriously suggesting that Firebox is worse than Tim Berners-Lee's original WorldWideWeb brower, you are seriously deranged. The original WWW had no image support, and no bookmarks, to name just two features.

Ridiculous to suggest Firefox is not a massive improvement.

Secondly I genuinely would like to know how you managed to get a program designed for the NextStep platform to work on Windows 3.1. Here is a hint. You didn't.

The original WWW was developed in 1990 and was developed for the NextStep platform, Windows 3.1 came out in 1992. So you were probably using Mosaic if you indeed setup Windows 3.1 in a VM to make a point! Well done on that. Thanks actually for completely proving my point, Mosaic is significantly easier to use than the original WWW program. Go back and use the original WWW and compare the two.

Comment Re:Reinvent this, reinvent that. It's all still sh (Score 0) 266

Uhhhhhh, you do realize that the first web browser, WorldWideWeb, was in fact a graphical browser, right? Lynx and other text mode browsers didn't come out until years later.

If you're going to question the GP, at least have your facts straight, son.

Thanks Dad, you raise a good point. Maybe you should go back and use that and tell me if Firefox is any better than that version. If Mosaic (which ultimately Firefox came from) had not come out in 1993, we might still be using that original version which was pretty crappy and difficult to use.

Bottom line: Not all reboots are bad and doing the same thing is not always a good thing.

Thanks for playing.

Comment Re:Reinvent this, reinvent that. It's all still sh (Score 0) 266

Son of a bitch, we don't need any more "reinventions" of this and "reimagining" of that and "rebooting" of franchises.

Any time anyone tries to do such things, the end product is total shit.

Look at GNOME 3. It tried to "reinvent the Linux desktop experience". It's total, utter, absolute shit in every way possible.

Look at Firefox. It has recently tried to "reimagine" itself as if it were Chrome. It's now total, utter, absolute shit in every way possible.

Look at all of the "rebooted" movie series. It's one total, utter, absolute shit Incredible Hulk reboot after another.

Going in with the reinvent/reimagine/reboot mindset just results in total, utter, absolute shit being produced. Please, if you're thinking of doing this sort of stuff, do us all a favor and DON'T FUCKING DO IT!

Speak for yourself, not all reboots are bad.

Would you still prefer to be using a text browser, or *shudder* Internet Explorer instead of Firefox? Technically Firefox is a re-invention of those.

Going in with the "lets do the same thing as everyone else is doing" is not a good mindset in any way, shape, or form. I for one love innovation, and ultimately despite road bumps along the way, it often leads to better products in the long term.

Comment It's Never Too Late! (Score 5, Interesting) 306

I've been a programmer (mostly) for the past 25 + years.

At 16 I wrote my first computer game, love it and then... Stopped.

Used Fortran, Cobol and stuff and eventually Java Enterprise stuff.

Realised I HATED IT!!

At 46 decided games were my passion (should have continued from my first game at 16).

Fast forward 3 years I feel proficient in Objective-C, Cocos2D and other game frameworks - I absolutely love it. 3 published games later and a pile of other stuff - Having the time of my life.

Do what you love is all I can say to anyone readying this.

And if you want to learn IOS there is NO BETTER COURSE out there (yeah I like capital letters) than the free Stanford CS193P course on iTunes - Google it.

Paul Hegarty rocks as an instructor.

Embrace it, I am living proof its never too late!

Comment Re:I think something is missing here... (Score 1) 299

I always thought that the Get More Coverage option meant that people that have NOT subscribed to my page will get my post, as an ADVERTISEMENT, based on some algorithm where at least they target people with that interest (as my page).

It possibly might have meant that in the past. But I do know that the relatively new features facebook have added prevent people with facebook pages from getting their content out to all people following them unless they pay extra. I think they may be working on adding exceptions to this (possibly for non profit organisations, etc).

Note also there is a separate advertising program that marketers can use to target people with interests, etc (you can target by interest, by people who have liked a particular page [yours or someone else's], etc. I'm not talking about that program at all. Rather, I am talking about your own content being send to people already following you (having liked your page).

Interesting times to see if they are just going to upset their userbase.

Comment Re:I think something is missing here... (Score 2) 299

Are you sure you don't mean that facebook will ask for money so that your post stays longer and higher on people's newsfeed?
So now my posts won't reach all my 150 friends you're saying? Is this documented somewhere?

This applies to pages e.g. fan pages that you have Liked and followed. When someone posts something to a fan page, everyone who is following that page does not automatically get the content in their newsfeed. You can see this if you have a page as it shows you the coverage. Facebook give you an option to "pay for more coverage" e.g. let more people already following you see your content.

For your own posts to your friends I am not sure about that. I believe they might all get it. Not 100% sure.



Comment Re:I think something is missing here... (Score 3, Informative) 299

Forgive me if I'm incorrect here... But Facebook isn't trying to charge him to post on his page with 1 million fans; Facebook is trying to charge him for "promoting" [read: advertising] his post more prominently in peoples timelines and around the site.

I don't have a problem with this. You let Facebook's news feed dynamic work for free just like everyone else, your you pay up to reach others. Why is he pitching such a hissy fit over advertising not being free?

Facebook are now charging you to get access to your own fans per post, this is not extra advertising. Whenever you post something on facebook only a small subset will get your content injected into their news feed unless you cough up the extra money so that more/all of them see it.

This is something they only added a few months ago. They want to charge this every time you post as well.

So I don't blame him for getting a bit upset at least here as this is something that facebook have taken away e.g. it was free and now they charge for it. To be fair though, they never gave you 100% coverage of your posts into fans feeds before, but now it's a really low "free" coverage and you have to pay to get the vast majority of people who are already following you to see your content.


The Nuts and Bolts of PlayStation 3D 154

The Digital Foundry blog took an in-depth look at how Sony is introducing 3D technology to PlayStation 3 games. They give a step-by-step description of how the system generates a 3D frame (or rather, a pair of frames), and the graphical hurdles that need be to overcome to ensure the games look good. The article also discusses some of the subtle effects 3D technology can have on gameplay: "'One interesting thing came through in the immersion aspect was that in the first-person camera view, it felt so much more like being there. Typically when most people play MotorStorm, something like 90 per cent play in the third-person view,' Benson explains. 'As soon as we put the 3D settings in place, the first-person view became a lot more popular, a lot more people were using that view. This could indicate that 3D could perhaps change the standards, if you like.' ... 'We found that in the first-person view the game is giving you all the sorts of cues that you're used to in normal driving: speed perception, the ability to judge distances, things like that. It's far easier to avoid track objects.' The insertion of true stereoscopic 3D into MotorStorm also brings about a new sense of appreciation of the scale and size of the game world and the objects within it."

Slashdot Top Deals

Like punning, programming is a play on words.