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:About time... (Score 1) 95

Barclays Business Internet Banking.

The bank that's been running since 1690, forms a major part of UK and multinational banking, is listed on London and New York stock exchanges, and "was the most powerful transnational corporation in terms of ownership and thus corporate control over global financial stability and market competition".

We're not talking about your online personal account. We're talking about business accounts that require multiple smartcard authorisation to sign off on millions of pounds a year of salaries.

And yes, they STILL require IE / Firefox ESR, .NET Framework, and Gemalto ActiveX controls.

Comment Re:About time... (Score 3, Insightful) 95


If it's not HTML5, they are required to push out an iPad app because there will be something that doesn't work on Safari. Android / Chromebook apps will never appear or will have to wait for the HTML5 version, and it will never be properly navigable across all devices with bare HTML5 (people keep telling me this, I've yet to see a decent demonstration that doesn't just send you to two different places). Hell, these people still use Quicktime...


Our business banking partner insisted on using IE until this year. When they then realised it was going to die and they had to upgrade for Windows 10? We now HAVE to use Firefox ESR editions with a specific .NET Framework, an ActiveX-like control and exceptions for scripting etc. on their domains (their software tries to auto-add them on install to IE too!). If anything, we've taken two steps back in terms of security there, and still have a browser that is NOT our default browser just for banking.

Video streaming:

They all started off saying they'll support HTML5, but some of the HTML5 versions are literally play and stop and that's it. A load of sites break when you try to just play a movie, and how do I stop it auto-playing? Oh, there's a plugin/extension/js for that.

We need to get off our arses and just say "Fuck off. Plain HTML5 and nothing else or we don't visit". I still run across pages that want Java and all kinds of junk.

Relying on a plugin of any kind, even Flash, (plugins have to be native code) is inherently not cross-platform and is a security risk. You have no idea if that plugin's breaking open your SSL sessions and handling other data from sites insecurely.

Trouble is, the places that MATTER (i.e. schools which are teaching the children how to use a computer, and banks which are holding your money to ransom if you're anybody) don't give a shit. We're still fighting banks on "but this is more secure" when they make us run closed code in a closed plugin tied into closed sites on a particular browser that's not your normal browser and is - by definition - outdated. It shouldn't be.

The quicker Chrome blocks all this shit, and Microsoft Edge and Safari follow, the quicker people will have to fix it to make things work as before.

Don't let the banks pull the "You must use IE shit" any more. Literally just switch them off and go "We warned you, now you'll need to follow best practice as we've said for decades".

Comment Re:Trump never said it, you morons. (Score 1) 572

Only a liar makes up another question to answer.

You say "What kind of question is that?", "Where have you got that from?", "Where do you get your information?".

Making up bollocks means "I don't want to answer that particular question".

Calling out the interviewer says "What shit are you trying to pull here? Give me a real interview."

Watch some of the greats being interviewed, they don't do this modern politics bullshit where you just don't answer. They give straight answers, back them up, and you can only argue that you disagree with their particular (usually well-reasoned) argument.

It's a modern disease to think that speaking absolute unrelated bollocks is showing how clever you are.

And if you don't want to say Yes or No to a question, it indicates that you don't want people to know what you think.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
"Well, that's a fucking impossible question to answer and you know it, but I'll answer the question you are trying to misconstrue which is "Do I beat my wife?" and the answer is emphatically no. Now I'm interested in what you think you're trying to pull. Want to ask me a real question that I can express my opinion in next, or should we get a professional interviewer in?"

Comment Re:GPS or NIST (Score 1) 179

If you're that worried, change your accepted settings.

But you're talking crap, as my NTP pool server gets PUSHED OFF the pool if it drifts anywhere near that far, or goes offline for even a short time.

Currently my jitters for are:


Those numbers are IN MILLISECONDS. 0.05 of a millisecond.

And 0.478 on a stratum 1, famous, advertised, academic, public NTP server not in the pool.

Comment Re:Benny Hill? (Score 3, Interesting) 124

Nothing to do with not liking Benny Hill.

It's to do with the generation that did nearly being dead.

If you were 20 when Benny was on TV, you'll be over 60 now.

Welcome to Britain, where our comedy is up to date, the US find it 20 years later where they think it's still funny for 20 years after that.

Seriously, guys, we had Red Dwarf in the 80's/90's and the first mention I've ever seen in the US (apart from the atrocious Americanised US pilot) was in Big Bang Theory only a handful of years ago. Red Dwarf has been dead and buried since I was in secondary school.

Same with your Monty Python fetish. It was funny AT THE TIME for being outlandish, outrageous, different. That was in the 70's, ffs. It's old hat and hasn't actually been freshly funny for my entire life, yet if a Brit talks to a US person about comedy, I guarantee you they will come up (I'm a Brit, I have proven this statistically by my various encounters...)

It's not that "it's not funny", it's that it was funny BEFORE WE WERE BORN, or so long ago that nobody remembers. Since then, so much else has come and gone that's so much funnier, that by comparison it's archaic.

But you guys never seem to see that stuff.

Re-runs are the death of comedy like that, which was based on shock, rudeness, at-the-time-bordering-on-the-inappropriate, and stars that were still alive. Benny Hill has been dead for 20-something years and hasn't been on TV for over 30-something years, and that was in his later years when he just wasn't funny any more.

Hell, he starred in the ORIGINAL Italian Job and that was made in 1969.

It's like all of us here in Britain crowing about how funny I Love Lucy "is".

Comment Re:Right, blame the consumer, not the company. (Score 1) 76

Because "We pass the emissions test" is an entirely verifiable fact.

Whereas "The AI is like nothing ever seen before, the world is procedurally-generated, the graphics are amazing" are not. They are subjective. At best, they throw buzzwords at you that are easy to comply with while still trolling out a turd of a game (I can make you a procedurally generated game, if you like. Give me ten minutes). They are marketing.

And you fell for it.

Comment Sigh. (Score 5, Insightful) 76

Stop buying shit before you know how good (or bad) it is.

You are perpetuating shitty over-hyped products that flop once people actually get their hands on them.

If you didn't part with your money until it was released, reviewed, tested, a handful of brave souls had tried it out, etc. then companies would have to put out decent products first time rather than rely on pre-release hype to sell enough that they don't have to care that it's a turd they're selling.

It's not even a new thing, this sort of shit was happening long before Duke Nukem Forever and people STILL KEEP BUYING SHIT.

Buy a game after it's been out for a year, and you know whether or not you want it. It'll be cheaper, you'll buy half the amount of games you actually do, they'll be much better quality on average and - best of all - after the first year you won't give a shit about "missing out" because year-old games will still be "new" to you.

Comment Re:a personal experience (Score 1) 226

Can you please distinguish between religious and spiritual when your own explanation contains:

"who is watching the watcher"

It sounds immensely like you belief you hit an existence controlled or observed by an entity other than known ones. Sounds exactly like a religion to me!

Honestly, I'm not being facetious here... what's the difference? Absence of a belief-in-god does not make something non-religious. Absence of knowledge of any-god-or-not doesn't either.

What's the difference between spiritual and religious?

Comment Re:I can confirm that. (Score 4, Insightful) 226


I never get why we have to overblow this.

Do you know, I drove home last night and have no memory of doing so? Automatic pilot, driven by my brain, while I thought of "higher" things.

I changed gear, negotiated roundabouts, kept to speed limits, stopped for pedestrians and red lights and navigated home without giving it a single conscious thought.

I also know that every night I fall unconscious, hallucinate vividly and then have complete amnesia about the whole event if I'm not interrupted before my brain is finished with it. It's called dreaming.

If I was sitting in a room for six years trying to do something, my brain would hallucinate the same (that's not meant to be an insulting word, it's quite literally what imagination and dreaming are) and believe I was outside my body. Yet, nobody, ever, in any controlled experiment, even when saying they ARE in that "special place" has ever demonstrated knowledge of, say, what's on top of the dresser behind them that they couldn't see from inside their body, or similar. You can even awake completely relaxed, unstressed, energised, without even having an hour's rest if you've had the right dream.

In the same way as out-of-body near-death experiences and suchlike, attributing it to some other existence seems, to me, to be entirely insulting to the capacity of the human mind under normal circumstances.

We have composers who see colours, artists who can paint pictures that don't complete until the final brush stroke but they can see it in their head in vivid detail, and story-writers who live in their heads most of their lives even if they can't write it down to save their life.

When the brain is then deprived of sensory information, and forced to entertain itself, it's no wonder that such experiences happen. To push them to "something else" rather than "Woah, my brain is capable of stupendous feats" is, I feel, condescending.

It doesn't require a supernatural explanation, or even comment. We've probably all done more amazing things in our sleep, or driving home from work.

Hell, I dreamed a "movie" from start to finish in twenty minutes of being asleep one night and still, to this day, I like to fold back into that dream or even write it down (which has taken YEARS of my life to do so). My brain was on-form that night, and I awoke exhilarated and haven't forgotten that experienced in 20+ years.

I really find it annoying when people then - as you just did - write it off as supernatural and, having "mastered" it in what sounds like a repeatable way, then ignore it and never do it again for fear of... what? Discovering some truth? Angering some god?

What if that's the way to escape the Matrix? What if that's the way to gain insight from your own mind on things nobody else has ever managed? What if that is the way to Heaven/Hell or whatever?

As someone of a scientific mind (can't you tell?), it drives me mad that people get near the equivalent of the next level of human existence, then never repeat it, wrap it in crap like "astral projection" and meditation, and basically forget it ever happened.

If it made you not fear death, surely you could do it again and be less scared, and not fear dying in the process?

But, maybe that would then conflict if - actually - it turns out just to have been a particularly vivid dream?

Comment Re:Infinite speed? (Score 1) 244

This kind of physics is not physics, It's maths.

Maths has no problem with infinities. Hell, we classify different types of infinities and apple actions to them in different ways. An infinity doesn't scare a mathematician.

The problem is then applying that to a real-world interpretation as "infinite" anything - space, time, energy, matter - is hard to conceive and generally impossible. However, infinities themselves can cancel out, present only in impossible situations anyway, and so on. Same with quantum physics - the maths tells you WHAT happens, and we've confirmed the maths by multiple observations of exactly all the weird things the maths predicts, but we're still not entirely sure we're describing EVERYTHING as there are a few oddballs.

Infinities don't mean something's inherently wrong. And infinities come up in Maths all the time, from basic arithmetic onwards.

The problem is not that there's an infinity. It's having an infinity as the answer without a real-world analogue to that mathematical answer.

Comment Re:eating less (Score 1) 254

Personalised medicine is damn expensive. In a world where we can't afford cheap generics for enough people, and still have insurance-backed healthcare (stupidity personified), personalised medicine is an extra cost that can be put on you and penalise you for your genetic makeup further than we ever could before.

Or you could just eat less.

Because we have NOWHERE NEAR an understanding enough to tell people what they should be doing to get their weight down in such instances, without also involving the words "eat less" and "exercise more" along with them.

We haven't even identified most gut bacteria, let alone work out which ones are "wrong", let alone where they came from, let alone what's needed to put them back, and certain NOT how to sustain that situation without changing what the user eats and getting them to ... EAT LESS OF IT to see if it works.

Personalised medicine is fabulous. If you can afford it. There's a reason that we type blood, and check chromosomes and all kinds of other things for your personal response to something (good or bad). And every test costs, whether you pay for it directly or not. And pretty much, in modern healthcare, the emphasis is on reducing the number of tests, not increasing them. Because every failed test costs just as much as every success, which is why you hire clever doctors to know what tests are necessary to eliminate the most things the quickest.

But your dicky belly that's solved by eating less just isn't worth the cost, unless there's a serious underlying medical reason that's going to kill you, rather than a chosen ignorance of eating less to avoid things that will kill you.

Slashdot Top Deals

The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky