I want a gigabit ethernet port. That is not a "legacy" port.
Depends on how you look at it. It's a very old connector that is simply too thick for a modern laptop. We should have standardized on a smaller interconnect cable a long time ago, but haven't. Either it's an RJ-45 adapter to some proprietary connector (since there's no standardized option) or you just externalize the interface entirely, since the bus is fast enough. Either way, you need an adapter.
I'm not a huge fan of this laptop, but that's one thing I totally understand.
The byte is just an arbitrary abstract boundary, but individual bits are a hard limit. A single 5MB file will be a bit over 41 million counts of infringement.
Good idea. They should put RFID tags on all the luggage and track where....wait. This is their internal tracking system. They're opening it up to passengers, but presumably using it to prevent the problems in the first place by being aware of luggage going the wrong way.
AOSP is free software. Does AOSP lack support for color emoji?
I'm using a different definition of proprietary. It's being pushed by a single proprietor. But yes, that one OS as a whole does contain support for it (5.0+).
The W3C has no business specifying fonts. They are a web consortium - it's well outside their scope. They are one of many people who use fonts.
Really, they are only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written - legislating from the bench is against the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. What needs to happen now is an updated law to clarify this to the original intent (and hopefully grant amnesty to anyone wrongly covered). Doubtful that will ever happen, but that's what should happen.
Just wait until they find infringing content on a server that supports HTTP byte-range requests. Just using a download manager to get a single file could be 10-15 counts.
I'd love ratings/recommendations to be decoupled from Netflix. I have Amazon Prime for shipping, but have no idea what video content I might want to watch. It won't take my Netflix ratings and tell me what to watch. But if there was a provider-neutral option, I'd re-rate everything I've ever watched just for that.
It's not so much about what she outright said. It's more the pandering to that crowd that was less outright spoken. That level of pandering makes me very uncomfortable - especially when she's a doctor. It's not that the two primary candidates aren't doing more and worse - I very much dislike that too.
weapon that has a high probability of being able to wipe out much of the Eastern United States for which we do not have a reliable counter measure, renders our convention force impotent
We should close our foreign bases and withdraw our troops. I would suggest we mostly don't need the army.
While I mostly agree that our military budget is way out of control, our foreign bases/presence is also a way of keeping them from all being wiped out by a simple nuclear attack in one place/country.
While mostly true, for a medical doctor she still willingly hinted at buying into standard anti-vaccination stupidity (whether sincere or not, that's a problem). There is some reason to believe that certain vaccines can cause auto-immune problems in a small handful of genetically specific people - but she made no mention of anything like that. This is why I think that universal vaccination is not a good rule and that herd immunity should be good enough, provided that it's doctors making the final decision.
She also believes there might be some merit to the idea of wi-fi poisoning.
Voting for the lesser of two evils means nothing when your state is a landslide state. Voting for a 3rd-party might get the party over a threshold to be on the ballot next election or get campaign funding. You're not just voting for a candidate that won't win - you're voting for the future of another political party where there are currently two bad parties dominating.
I was thinking of a news site that shows photo, headline, and first paragraph to desktop or tablet users, but only the headline and a differently cropped photo to users of 6" or smaller devices. This way you can still fit as many stories into 320x440px.*
And so the mobile user loses functionality / is forced to waste MORE bandwidth by loading the entire article just to see the first paragraph, because the content is there but hidden with no way to reveal.
I thought additional HTTP 1.1 requests were more expensive than repeating any styles or scripts that block rendering of the first screen of the document.
Improving the page loading speed does not reduce bandwidth usage. Render-blocking is only hardware/time expensive. This only matters if you expect users to visit only one page of your site and then go back to SERP (which is where Google wants people to get). On subsequent page visits ALL CSS is cached (at most you go out for an HTTP 304) and no bandwidth is wasted if you use CSS.
more detailed information to UAs with larger* screens and less detailed information to users with smaller screens
This is a bad way to do mobile design. Nobody wants to be forced to use a desktop computer to see the whole web page.
Using CSS to hide one element or show another is bad design, too. You can use those breakpoints to resize/reshape/reposition the content. One single copy of the content displayed two different ways. You can even use lower resolution versions of background images depending on screen size.
The real threat to bandwidth usage is ASP.Net Web Forms and HTML bloat by really inefficient design tools - or worse, embedded CSS/Javascript in the HTML that can't be cached from page view to page view.
One example is a font used to represent the emoji characters in Unicode
One proprietary example proposed by a browser/phone vendor. It really doesn't belong in a font - just because it's represented with unicode code points is not reason enough.
If the page is designed with a responsive stylesheet that won't happen until you get to probably higher than 18-20pts or much higher. And that's what every web site should be doing - the page will reflow correctly, and if there are too many elements in a row, they will be wrapped and text blocks widened. Non-proportional scaling is only a good fallback after proper design.
The entire concept of the WWW as Berners-Lee conceived it was that the website would transmit information to the client, and the client's browser would display it in a format most suitable for the client display device.
And the continuing drafts of CSS are enabling that to remain true while still allowing design into the process.
Modern websites are so design-centered that they actually have to create two different sites for display on large computer monitors vs small phone and tablet screens.
None should be that way in 2016 - there is no excuse. I'm a relatively non-designer, who does happen to build mobile-responsive web sites. CSS breakpoints make it possible to create a design and have it look consistent (not identical) across all possible screen sizes. You can have style/design/personality and still 100% fulfill that original vision of the web.
On the other hand, this is also why I still hand-code my HTML/CSS with the help of CSS frameworks to save a bit of typing.
There is no possibility for WYSIWIG on the web at this time, and you're right - it's entirely the wrong mentality. Because you have to design with forethought to all possible devices. Any sites that break in 2016 because of different browser sizes or settings are because they aren't cut out for the gig.
What's funny is that Microsoft was way too far ahead of the game with the much-hated WebTV. No web sites worked with it - there were no screens or portable devices besides computer screens. If they created a modern WebTV device now, a lot of the major sites on the web would look like they were made for it. It's a solved problem. Most web sites that break at odd screen sizes today were based on cheap Wordpress themes out of India.
I think the web frameworks are partly at fault. The phone screen is the smallest "size" in the responsive grid, but when you zoom in on a phone, your "screen" becomes even smaller than the smallest size.
I design mobile-responsive web sites in hand-coded HTML/CSS with the help of a web framework and I've come into this wall a few times. Ideally, there would be a smaller breakpoint that would put that text on its own row when zooming in on mobile. And theoretically I could add one to my framework of choice but that would potentially require a lot of work.
Slashdot Mirror
The right answer to that isn't to oppose the act, it's to propose amending the constitution.
But..but...dongles dangle and cables dangle, so this dangle is a dongle.
I want a gigabit ethernet port. That is not a "legacy" port.
Depends on how you look at it. It's a very old connector that is simply too thick for a modern laptop. We should have standardized on a smaller interconnect cable a long time ago, but haven't. Either it's an RJ-45 adapter to some proprietary connector (since there's no standardized option) or you just externalize the interface entirely, since the bus is fast enough. Either way, you need an adapter.
I'm not a huge fan of this laptop, but that's one thing I totally understand.
The byte is just an arbitrary abstract boundary, but individual bits are a hard limit. A single 5MB file will be a bit over 41 million counts of infringement.
Good idea. They should put RFID tags on all the luggage and track where....wait. This is their internal tracking system. They're opening it up to passengers, but presumably using it to prevent the problems in the first place by being aware of luggage going the wrong way.
Also, how do you miss a flight after checking in?
TSA security lines are running 2-3 hours in some places....and that's after you check your luggage.
AOSP is free software. Does AOSP lack support for color emoji?
I'm using a different definition of proprietary. It's being pushed by a single proprietor. But yes, that one OS as a whole does contain support for it (5.0+).
The W3C has no business specifying fonts. They are a web consortium - it's well outside their scope. They are one of many people who use fonts.
Really, they are only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written - legislating from the bench is against the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. What needs to happen now is an updated law to clarify this to the original intent (and hopefully grant amnesty to anyone wrongly covered). Doubtful that will ever happen, but that's what should happen.
Just wait until they find infringing content on a server that supports HTTP byte-range requests. Just using a download manager to get a single file could be 10-15 counts.
I'd love ratings/recommendations to be decoupled from Netflix. I have Amazon Prime for shipping, but have no idea what video content I might want to watch. It won't take my Netflix ratings and tell me what to watch. But if there was a provider-neutral option, I'd re-rate everything I've ever watched just for that.
keeps telling me I should listen to prog rock, 80s pop, and the occasional "safe-for-old-people" new artist.
Ratings engines aren't magic. Odds are that a lot of people who listen to electronic/dance listen to those other things too.
If they nuke just the military bases, an awful lot.
It's not so much about what she outright said. It's more the pandering to that crowd that was less outright spoken. That level of pandering makes me very uncomfortable - especially when she's a doctor. It's not that the two primary candidates aren't doing more and worse - I very much dislike that too.
There is little, if any dark last-mile fiber.
Still more realistic than most North Korean brags.
weapon that has a high probability of being able to wipe out much of the Eastern United States for which we do not have a reliable counter measure, renders our convention force impotent
We should close our foreign bases and withdraw our troops. I would suggest we mostly don't need the army.
While I mostly agree that our military budget is way out of control, our foreign bases/presence is also a way of keeping them from all being wiped out by a simple nuclear attack in one place/country.
Putin wants Russia to be great.
Is this why Putin wants Trump?
she seems like a reasonable alternative
While mostly true, for a medical doctor she still willingly hinted at buying into standard anti-vaccination stupidity (whether sincere or not, that's a problem). There is some reason to believe that certain vaccines can cause auto-immune problems in a small handful of genetically specific people - but she made no mention of anything like that. This is why I think that universal vaccination is not a good rule and that herd immunity should be good enough, provided that it's doctors making the final decision.
She also believes there might be some merit to the idea of wi-fi poisoning.
Voting for the lesser of two evils means nothing when your state is a landslide state. Voting for a 3rd-party might get the party over a threshold to be on the ballot next election or get campaign funding. You're not just voting for a candidate that won't win - you're voting for the future of another political party where there are currently two bad parties dominating.
I was thinking of a news site that shows photo, headline, and first paragraph to desktop or tablet users, but only the headline and a differently cropped photo to users of 6" or smaller devices. This way you can still fit as many stories into 320x440px.*
And so the mobile user loses functionality / is forced to waste MORE bandwidth by loading the entire article just to see the first paragraph, because the content is there but hidden with no way to reveal.
I thought additional HTTP 1.1 requests were more expensive than repeating any styles or scripts that block rendering of the first screen of the document.
Improving the page loading speed does not reduce bandwidth usage. Render-blocking is only hardware/time expensive. This only matters if you expect users to visit only one page of your site and then go back to SERP (which is where Google wants people to get). On subsequent page visits ALL CSS is cached (at most you go out for an HTTP 304) and no bandwidth is wasted if you use CSS.
The ability to decode the font is also still proprietary. It's not an ability inherent in any widely adopted font format.
Codepoints does not mean characters. Emoji are not characters. Unicode is only involved as a way to represent them in a small number of bytes.
more detailed information to UAs with larger* screens and less detailed information to users with smaller screens
This is a bad way to do mobile design. Nobody wants to be forced to use a desktop computer to see the whole web page.
Using CSS to hide one element or show another is bad design, too. You can use those breakpoints to resize/reshape/reposition the content. One single copy of the content displayed two different ways. You can even use lower resolution versions of background images depending on screen size.
The real threat to bandwidth usage is ASP.Net Web Forms and HTML bloat by really inefficient design tools - or worse, embedded CSS/Javascript in the HTML that can't be cached from page view to page view.
One example is a font used to represent the emoji characters in Unicode
One proprietary example proposed by a browser/phone vendor. It really doesn't belong in a font - just because it's represented with unicode code points is not reason enough.
If the page is designed with a responsive stylesheet that won't happen until you get to probably higher than 18-20pts or much higher. And that's what every web site should be doing - the page will reflow correctly, and if there are too many elements in a row, they will be wrapped and text blocks widened. Non-proportional scaling is only a good fallback after proper design.
The entire concept of the WWW as Berners-Lee conceived it was that the website would transmit information to the client, and the client's browser would display it in a format most suitable for the client display device.
And the continuing drafts of CSS are enabling that to remain true while still allowing design into the process.
Modern websites are so design-centered that they actually have to create two different sites for display on large computer monitors vs small phone and tablet screens.
None should be that way in 2016 - there is no excuse. I'm a relatively non-designer, who does happen to build mobile-responsive web sites. CSS breakpoints make it possible to create a design and have it look consistent (not identical) across all possible screen sizes. You can have style/design/personality and still 100% fulfill that original vision of the web.
On the other hand, this is also why I still hand-code my HTML/CSS with the help of CSS frameworks to save a bit of typing.
There is no possibility for WYSIWIG on the web at this time, and you're right - it's entirely the wrong mentality. Because you have to design with forethought to all possible devices. Any sites that break in 2016 because of different browser sizes or settings are because they aren't cut out for the gig.
What's funny is that Microsoft was way too far ahead of the game with the much-hated WebTV. No web sites worked with it - there were no screens or portable devices besides computer screens. If they created a modern WebTV device now, a lot of the major sites on the web would look like they were made for it. It's a solved problem. Most web sites that break at odd screen sizes today were based on cheap Wordpress themes out of India.
I think the web frameworks are partly at fault. The phone screen is the smallest "size" in the responsive grid, but when you zoom in on a phone, your "screen" becomes even smaller than the smallest size.
I design mobile-responsive web sites in hand-coded HTML/CSS with the help of a web framework and I've come into this wall a few times. Ideally, there would be a smaller breakpoint that would put that text on its own row when zooming in on mobile. And theoretically I could add one to my framework of choice but that would potentially require a lot of work.