Slashdot Mirror

That is why I use FlashBlock. Actually, I use Linux first, so that helps, but when I am on Windows, FlashBlock, in addition to Firefox, helps.

All they need to do is a Gaussian averaging kernel around the fractional pixel position they want to estimate the value of. It's not really hard.

I suggest optimizing Your approach for speed. After all, not everybody has a 3GHz machine (granted, outside the USA).

Have a look at gdk-pixbuf: they have implemented a "Tiles" scaling algorithm that seems ideal for this task: it's faster than bilinear interpolation, and the result is similar to bilinear when reducing the size.

It looks like nearest neighbor only when enlarging, but Firefox will never do that anyway...

Look here . Chosen quote:

GDK_INTERP_TILES
This is an accurate simulation of the PostScript image operator without any interpolation enabled. Each pixel is rendered as a tiny parallelogram of solid color, the edges of which are implemented with antialiasing. It resembles nearest neighbor for enlargement, and bilinear for reduction.

Also, see this Mozilla bug.

I know a lot of people that use their webmail accounts in this manner (yahoo, hotmail, etc) where if they think they need to be access a file somewhere else, they'll just e-mail it to themselves in an attachment. In all honesty though, the adoption rate for something like this for home personal users isn't going to ramp up until the average upload speeds of a home connection increases. Especially for large files, too many Joe Computer users are going to think their computer froze just because it's taking so long to upload their files.

Firefox can be an IE shell too, you know.

> It's up to the browser/search engine/application as to what is done with it.

There is a Firefox extension that displays the 3 symbols (By, NC, SA) in your status bar as they are found in an RDF chunk in the page you're visiting.

Use the FTP functionality of Windows Explorer (a.k.a. "My Computer"):

Click on 'My Computer' on your desktop or start menu, and in the address bar type: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/

You will see the directory listing for their public directory. Click on 'pub', click on 'mozilla.org', 'Firefox', navigate to the version of Firefox you want, and drag it to your desktop. Just like working with local files and directories!!

In Firefox, there's an entry in the help menu called "Report Broken Website". Also, the Mozilla Foundation has a site evangelism page here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/si te/procedures.html. Broken websites are recorded and tracked in Bugzilla.

That said, Mozilla/Firefox don't support SVG from CSS and don't support CSS intrinsic ratios for displaying SVG, making the SVG support pretty much useless for me.

In Opera, you can right-click any search-box to add it to the search engine dropdown box, as well as defining it as a 'search keyword' at the same time.

Firefox lets you define a search keyword in a similar manner (rightclick, 'Add a Keyword for this Search'). This doesn't add it to the search dropdown box though like Opera does - if you want to do this, you need to use the 'Add Engines' feature located in the search drop down box. This takes you here. You have to then browse this website to see if the parameters needed for that particular search box have been created by somebody already.

First, I'll agree that, yes, CAcert is not supported by anything I know of. Mozilla finally got its act together and published a policy. The ball's in CAcert's court, last I heard; they need to have an audit done.

As I understand it, the point of the system is not to act as a content filter, but simply to establish identity. For e-mail certificates with no name (just the address), they simply send an e-mail probe. For domains, they run a WHOIS and you select one of the e-mail addresses in the registration info. If you actually want a name on your certificates, you must be assured by two people, who can be someone already in the web of trust or one of several widely trusted third parties. These procedures are comparable to the ones used by CAs that are installed in browsers, at least for their lower levels.

I really don't understand the belief that "only people with $20-1500/yr need to be authenticated." Really, anytime you send secret/valuable data, it should be sent to an authenticated server over an encrypted channel. CAcert is a program that provides some hope of achieving this. The other big thing is Server Name Indication support and the retirement of SSL2; that will allow multiple SSL certs per IP, removing another costly barrier.

Let's be realistic here: how many people actually use a different password for each website that uses one? how many of these sites actually use SSL?

If your gripe is based on some problem with CAcert's execution, then I encourage you to ignore this rant and elaborate on your points.

Well, if they are a certificate provider, then they should be self-signing. How weird would it be if they were using a Verisign cert?

The real problem, however, is convincing the major browsers to add cacert to their default trusted certificate authorities. Firefox already has a bug for this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21524 3

Or you can just use LeetKey in Firefox. I do believe the author hangs out here.

Anyone else have a hard time here reading Slashdot now that it's gone to this new layout/theme?

I used to.

Is there any way I can go back to a Slashdot that values content over style?

Yes. Install Stylish, and then go here or here.

And Firefox is funded by AOL. So take your pick.

Disinformation. This is 2006, not 2003.

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/

doesnt it seem like they're just building extensions into firefox and calling it something else? this isnt really something new:
del.icio.us
photobucket
flickr
sage rss reader

doesnt it seem like they're just building extensions into firefox and calling it something else? this isnt really something new:
del.icio.us
photobucket
flickr
sage rss reader

doesnt it seem like they're just building extensions into firefox and calling it something else? this isnt really something new:
del.icio.us
photobucket
flickr
sage rss reader

doesnt it seem like they're just building extensions into firefox and calling it something else? this isnt really something new:
del.icio.us
photobucket
flickr
sage rss reader

#footerx, .rightCol, .pad
{
    position: absolute;
    top: -10000;
}

Bless Firefox and the NoScript (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/722/) extension.

They already had. Well, not the actual developers, but the guys at Viamatic.
Check this out, the Viamatic foXpose extension
--
OMG! My first post!

Thanks to the Firefox Adblock plug-in, I never saw any ads on the site. :)

You can also use http://adblock.free.fr/adblock.txt or the Filterset.G Firefox extension to keep your filters up to date.

see something similar https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2134/

extension for pdf download https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/636/

Install Stylish, then go here, here, or here.

> I'm with that other individual: Is there any extension that does this with an ftp/webdav/... server of *my* choice?

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1989/

or

http://extensions.geckozone.org/BookmarksSynchroni zer

though only https, no sftp or ftps

I mean many solutions to this have already existed:

Bookmark Sync and Sort
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2367/

Online Bookmark Manager Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2469/

Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2410/

More here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/search.php?app=firefox& q=synchronize&cat=null&type=null&appfilter=null&pl atform=null&date=null&sort=newest&perpage=10&app=f irefox

Don't like Google or others having access to your bookmarks, the 1st one listed allows you to sync to any ftp or webdav server, so you control both the server and client. No need to manually do wgets or expose all your bookmarks to the world by putting it on a public http server.

I mean many solutions to this have already existed:

Bookmark Sync and Sort
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2367/

Online Bookmark Manager Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2469/

Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2410/

More here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/search.php?app=firefox& q=synchronize&cat=null&type=null&appfilter=null&pl atform=null&date=null&sort=newest&perpage=10&app=f irefox

Don't like Google or others having access to your bookmarks, the 1st one listed allows you to sync to any ftp or webdav server, so you control both the server and client. No need to manually do wgets or expose all your bookmarks to the world by putting it on a public http server.

I mean many solutions to this have already existed:

Bookmark Sync and Sort
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2367/

Online Bookmark Manager Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2469/

Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2410/

More here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/search.php?app=firefox& q=synchronize&cat=null&type=null&appfilter=null&pl atform=null&date=null&sort=newest&perpage=10&app=f irefox

Don't like Google or others having access to your bookmarks, the 1st one listed allows you to sync to any ftp or webdav server, so you control both the server and client. No need to manually do wgets or expose all your bookmarks to the world by putting it on a public http server.

I mean many solutions to this have already existed:

Bookmark Sync and Sort
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2367/

Online Bookmark Manager Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2469/

Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2410/

More here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/search.php?app=firefox& q=synchronize&cat=null&type=null&appfilter=null&pl atform=null&date=null&sort=newest&perpage=10&app=f irefox

Don't like Google or others having access to your bookmarks, the 1st one listed allows you to sync to any ftp or webdav server, so you control both the server and client. No need to manually do wgets or expose all your bookmarks to the world by putting it on a public http server.

Try Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer. At first it appears to only work with their servers, but if you look at the advanced settings it allows you to specify your own ftp server. I'm not sure if it encrypts it, but you could get a reasonable level of security by storing it in a non-web-accesible ftp folder, and there might be a setting to use secure ftp or https; I forget (I uninstalled it because I realized I didn't really need it).

For those who are worried about giving their browsing history and passwords to Google (or anyone for that matter), you can still reap the benefits of synchronized bookmarks with another Firefox extension: Foxmarks.

For those who are worried about giving their browsing history and passwords to Google (or anyone for that matter), you can still reap the benefits of synchronized bookmarks with another Firefox extension: Foxmarks.

What's all this excitement about? There are already about half a dozen different Firefox extensions in existence that allows you to sync bookmarks. If you ask me I'd tell you to go check out the bookmarks extensions

For those who are worried about giving their browsing history and passwords to Google (or anyone for that matter), you can still reap the benefits of synchronized bookmarks with another Firefox extension: Foxmarks.

Foxmarks is basically the same thing, but just for bookmarks (and not on Google's servers). It's great for keeping bookmarks across multiple machines, and also really useful for those who dual (or triple) boot a single machine. My triple-boot MacBook keeps all its bookmarks in sync with Foxmarks!

Why are you afraid to upgrade? You can always download older version if the new one doesn't work. And about this news.. It is about Firefox 3.0, so it is Happy New Year and few months more before you need to worry about this.

Here are older version (and latest also) of Firefox:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/

That's not what I meant. I was referring to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16236 1, which is already fixed, even for Firefox 2.

FWIW, Firefox 2 will support unicode in filenames and such despite also still working on Win9x.

I know that this is what they are aiming for:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23927 9

but whether it will be complete by the time pre-Windows 2000 support is dropppe is another matter.

No problem here
(Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7)

But my guess is that you're running a trunk version with Cairo turned on. There are at least a few bugs with font display. I found the following issues listed at the burning edge (http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33071 5
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32470 6
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32456 0

david

No problem here
(Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7)

But my guess is that you're running a trunk version with Cairo turned on. There are at least a few bugs with font display. I found the following issues listed at the burning edge (http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33071 5
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32470 6
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32456 0

david

No problem here
(Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7)

But my guess is that you're running a trunk version with Cairo turned on. There are at least a few bugs with font display. I found the following issues listed at the burning edge (http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33071 5
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32470 6
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32456 0

david

I really fell in love with LXR when I used it to dig in Mozilla source code. It works really well for large code bases.

I can't say if this is the best because I havent looked at many other options, I just use MS VisualStudio for most of the development and it has nice browsing features.

What about the web designers who use % in the CSS body statement? Aren't they really telling people that they are too stupid to configure their own browsers?

Looking at the body for /., the font line says:

font: 82%/150% Tahoma, 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', Helvetica, Arial, clean, sans-serif;

If I use Web Developer to edit the line and change the size to 100%/150%, the site is far easier to read. Couple the deliberate size change with the change in font (Tahoma looks smaller at the same point size than the previous /. font, whatever it was), and you wind up with a site that is harder to use.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, every other application I run has reasonable sized text in the main window. Firefox has reasonable sized text in the menus and dialog boxes. The only difference is the source of the text being displayed in the main window: coming from "web designers" who think we are all too stupid to configure our own browsers.

The designers may be correct when looking at people in bulk, but I would far prefer that they use pt (or even px) to set the base font size, and then use % in all the other tags instead of assuming that I couldn't find the browser options dialog.

How about a cookie that stores the preferred font size as you get on some sites?

will slashdot give me serifed fonts back

Go here to install stylish, then install this, this, or this.

...please check out the Mozilla XForms...

At my work, we've chosen the XForms route using Chiba for a recent product. It's not that surprising that I use it, because I was one of the editors of the 1.0 spec a long time ago, but it progressed even in my absence ;-) and it does fit many of the needs people describe here, in particular security and accessibility.

We write our dynamic markup in XHTML+XForms, following W3C standards (including nascent accessibility standards), and then use Chiba server-side in Tomcat to translate it into HTML4 and JavaScript. Chiba also offers a translation to HTML4 with a "refresh" button to initiate the dynamic activity via plain old HTTP, so it's fully accessible, though not as dynamic.

Longer term, please check out the Mozilla XForms XPI, which will take the XHTML+XForms markup directly. The browser does all its security stuff already, and it follows the IETF HTTP RFC and other W3C specs directly, so there's no need for funky workarounds or security lifting. The Firefox implementation is at rev 0.5 or 0.6 about now, and it's definitely usable, but when it gets to 1.0 it will be really great for dynamic behavior.

There are other implementations as well, FormFaces, which is written entirely in JavaScript and is way cool, FormsPlayer for IE, with lots of advanced features and which is a plugin, not a native implementation (as in the Firefox one); X-Smiles, the open source standalone implementation from Finland, SolidApp, another OSS one with paid support for small devices (mobile phone vendors look here), PicoForms, also for embedded apps but not OSS, Orbeon, a complete back-end server solution incorporating XForms and pipelines. I'm sure there's more major implementations I've missed, and also partial ones as well.

If you want to know more check out the XForms FAQ and XForms or HTML authors Part 1 and Part 2.

Plus, Will Wheaton likes it.

My new language will be whatever implements E4X but instead P4X or R4X(you know what that R stands for, c'mon Ruby guys, it's good, but it could be GREAT).

Since that's been done, I think JavaScript(in FF 1.5 and above) is the best language with the best XML support in the world. Anything else is like watching that silent hill movie again while cutting my wrist with a rusty serrated knife. I know .NET has some good stuff, and Java does too, but I've seen nothing but hacks for PHP and Ruby's isn't great. E4X @ mozdev

Anyone wanna post where else is good please? Me likey!

When writing an RSS reader is about 5 lines in JS, I mean, c'mon. That's nice.

I feel that while we don't need IPv6 yet, waiting until we do need it would be foolish. Think of this in the same terms as the Y2K issue, which never became an issue because people took proactive action.

Some useful IPv6 related links:
    - http://www.simphalempin.com/dev/miredo/
    - http://evanjones.ca/macosx-ipv6.html
    - http://www.bieringer.de/linux/IPv6/
    - http://www.hexago.com/
    - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/590/ - displays ipv6 address in firefox, if it has one
    - http://www.ipv6.org/impl/windows.html

All that is really needed is for the pockets of IPv6 networks to join up, rather than staying as pockets. Maybe an IPv6 based P2P or something of the sorts might help provide some sort of momentum.

@-moz-document domain( slashdot.org )
{
    span.score
    {
        position: static !important;
    }
}