So you don't care that literally the only thing that they're doing is forcing your phone to download the video stream slower? If they did nothing at all then you would have the same experience, but the file would download faster. That might mean that you can download a higher-quality video at the same rate, or you can set the quality lower as you please and download as fast as the network will allow.
Because the "yet-to-be-standard" names... generally don't exist yet
So what? The browser gets to that line, it doesn't recognize that property name, and the browser ignores it. What's the problem? When a version gets released that supports it, then it will use the property.
when web sites see their numbers start to plummet cause no one can view their site properly, maybe they'll fix it with standards compliant code.
Except that's not what happens. Websites don't see their numbers plummet, browsers see their market share plummet when people notice the site works in one browser and not in another browser. Guess which of those 2 groups Firefox is finding themselves inside. They want to be in the other group, and they don't want to wait for website developers to get their shit together or else Firefox is going to go the same way as Netscape.
If Webkit doesn't want to comply
Webkit is following the standard just fine. The drafts clearly said that browser vendors should implement experimental properties with their own prefixes prior to things being finalized. Every major vendor has their own prefix that was used during that time. Those prefixes are no longer needed, but web developers still launch sites that have the -webkit prefix only, without support for any other browser. So, only Webkit browsers use that CSS, and other browsers look like shit because the web developers didn't bother to put the standard properties, only the prefixed properties. The problem is not browsers, it is lazy and/or incompetent website developers (again).
I don't think anyone is blaming Webkit for anything. The problem lies solely with the developers.
Lazy developers implemented those properties using the prefixed property, since that's all that was available at the time, but didn't go back to fix the code afterwards when the standard was finalized.
Is there a compelling reason to not include the yet-to-be-standard prefixes initially, even if no browsers supported them yet? It seems like any competent developer from the beginning of CSS3 should have included any vendor prefixes as well as the standard, and then they wouldn't have had to go back and "fix" anything, just remove the cruft.
At least at an initial glance, it seems to me that the criticisms about WebKit being "the new IE" are generally misplaced
It's a good analogy, in the sense that if a browser vendor doesn't support the -webkit properties then their browser may appear broken, due to incompetent developers using only those properties (i.e., things only supported by Webkit, just like they used to use things only supported by IE). It's an apt analogy, a de-facto "standard" created by incompetent developers not understanding the things they're using. It's not suggesting anything about the relative merits of the Webkit engine versus any version of IE.
Only idiots provide an uncapped CC card for the Apple store, and do not create free account for the childrens iPad.
Well, then it's a good thing that Apple products are marketed at power users and are not designed for "regular people" who want their devices to "just work" without having to think too hard about anything.
in my ex-USSR mind anybody, who willingly takes up the "Socialist" label... belongs on a lamp-post
OK, so your mind is admittedly clouded by a strong (arguably irrational) negative bias. I'd say that was fairly obvious, but the admission is always nice. I could say that Sanders isn't suggesting that the US emulate the regime of the Soviets, but that probably wouldn't matter much if you don't make a distinction between different forms of socialism anyway.
I'm probably speaking to a brick wall here, but here's one thing: Sanders is not, and never has, advocated that the state should own the means of production.
I'm using/. to — quite successfully, as you see — tie Socialists to Hugo Chavez to reduce the danger of Leftism making further inroads in this country.
Oh, I didn't realize that. I just heard on CNN and Fox News this morning that someone on Slashdot was going around tying socialism to Hugo Chavez, and that was the reason why America is moving sharply to the right. I didn't realize that was you. I'm honored to meet someone so distinguished and influential.
First, many of his supporters are ahead. I'm not looking to Bernie to make me a millionaire, I'm looking for him to help me not be so embarrassed about living in the most wealthy country on the planet while we lock the future of our nation down in college debt. It's stupid. The single best thing we can do for the future of the country is to ensure that anyone who wants an education can get it. That would have an impact on things like crime, poverty, and homelessness that can't be overestimated. Likewise, I also believe that the wealthiest country on the planet has an obligation to make sure that anyone who is sick can get medical care. There is more than enough wealth in this country to pay for both of those programs. Between things like subsidies for oil companies, tax breaks and loopholes used by the largest banks and other people who do little more than move money from one place to another, and a military budget that is enough to patrol the entire world, believe me, we have enough money to pay for education and medical care for all of our citizens. If any country on this planet can do that, we can. Maybe our Navy doesn't need 19 aircraft carriers in service, with one more in reserve, 3 under construction, and another one ordered, when the rest of the world combined has a total of 20 carriers in service. Out of those other 20 aircraft carriers in the world, guess how many belong to our allies? Here's a hint: China has 1, and Russia has 1.
I don't agree with raising the minimum wage to $15, but that is mainly because I don't believe it would help.
I think it would help, but that it's not going to hit at the root of the problem. I think the root of the problem is high cost of education, if we switched to a free public education model then a minimum wage would be plenty to allow someone to get a college degree and get on with their life. Regardless though, I do think that minimum wage should be pegged to inflation, it should go up a little bit every year or two. The relative value that it has in society should be fairly stable, it's not fair when inflation rises and minimum wage doesn't, that doesn't help anything.
It shouldn't be surprising, his campaign has always been about connecting with individual voters, not large corporations or wealthy private donors. In the first debate when he was telling people to donate, his campaign was also sending emails to everyone who already had (where do you think they keep that data?). That is what that data is - who they've connected with and how. Obviously they counted on having that data available to them going forward, because people are willing to donate multiple times. My name is in there, too, along with many other people. Shortly before this story broke, yesterday he announced that they surpassed 2 million individual donations. You might not have heard that announcement, along with his endorsement by the Communication Workers union, because those announcements were pushed off the news cycle when the DNC suspended their access. That is and always has been the source of power driving his campaign, if you're surprised to hear them admit that (which they've been happy to admit since the beginning) then I don't think you're paying much attention.
6 Months ago both parties said "Jeb vs. Hillary" and today it's not quite so clear.
That was before all of the polls which showed that the only Republican candidate with the same level of negativity as Trump was Jeb Bush. He seemed kind of boring, but I didn't realize that so many Republicans actively dislike him so much. Months ago I was wanting to see an election with Bush vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Sanders, but I don't see that happening now. It would be more likely to be Cruz or Rubio, and at this point it sounds like Carson is also willing to go rogue.
If you have a question about how Sanders would be different from Chavez, then ask Sanders. ABC might have instructions on how to submit questions, but it sounds like you might need to use Twitter with #DemDebate. I'm sure by the start of the debate they'll tell you how to submit questions. That is, if you want an actual answer instead of just trolling Slashdot.
A majority of the country believes in so-called "socialist" policies, regardless of how those people want to label themselves. There's a reason why Bernie is so popular - he's saying what a lot of other people think. Incidentally, that's the exact same reason why Trump is so popular, except the exact opposite direction.
Sanders running as an independant would only result in President Trump.
You're making an awfully large assumption. What are we, 11 months away from the election? At this rate it still feels like the general election will be Cruz or Rubio vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Carson vs. Sanders. I don't think that would be a bad thing, either.
Democrats can't just sit out the election and hand it over to the Republicans if they don't get the candidate they like.
I'm not a Democrat, that's why I support Sanders and not Clinton. If Sanders doesn't run in the general election then I'll find a third-party candidate who sounds like they believe in what I do. I will cast my vote for the candidate who most represents me, regardless of how much or how little other people think my vote means. What I won't do is vote for someone that I don't believe in, and I don't believe in Clinton, I don't think she represents my interests any more than Donald Trump does. I refuse to cast a vote that is essentially a vote against someone else. I will either vote for someone who I feel represents me, or not at all. It would be a shame if there is no one who represents me, but with the support that Sanders has I find that outcome to be unlikely. I found a candidate in 2012 and I expect I'll be able to find one in 2016 also.
While we are all assuming this is a hatchet job to get Bernie locked out, these "intermittent firewall drops" could, in fact, be Hillary having arranged for her people to be able to spy on him - but nobody is mentioning that in the news articles.
Psh. You're only saying that because the co-owner of the vendor handling all of the data was Clinton's CTO in 2008. They don't need to go through the system to access that data, they can just have it handed straight to them.
P.S. 15 years as a network engineer and i still dont know why the press uses the term firewall so loosely.
It's a pretty loose term for something designed to provide security through separation. When software and network appliances for restricting access came to be, the name was borrowed from automotive or building construction.
So, no, Clinton did not access any of the Sanders data, and yes, we do KNOW that. It's not speculation, it's a known fact.
...as dictated by Nathaniel Pearlman, co-owner of NGP-VAN (the company in charge of the data), and Hillary Clinton's chief technology officer for her 2008 campaign. Surely there's no conflict of interest there, right?
This should put a final end to the Sanders campaign
Except it won't, regardless of what shills like you tell everyone what "should" happen. You can bray all you want about how Hillary is going to win the general election, but it doesn't make it so until it actually happens. I support Sanders, but I won't vote for Clinton. If you think that all of Sanders' supporters are going to switch to Hillary if she gets the Democratic nomination then you're wrong. I would rather see Sanders run as an independent in the general election, he already has the name recognition and support that would have precluded a run like that if he hadn't been allowed to debate on TV.
But now we know the depths he'll stoop to in order to try for it anyway.
What we know is that he didn't "stoop" to any "depth". His volunteer in charge of data caught the vendor with the firewall down, allowing the Clinton campaign access to all of the Sanders data. We also know that shills like you will continue to try and make this into a loss for Sanders. We already know how Clinton works, this doesn't change our minds. We know that Sanders is trustworthy, and we know that Clinton is not. The DNC can try to handicap Sanders but he already has our support.
This whole thing stinks, it stinks because the co-owner of NGP VAN was Clinton's chief technology officer for her 2008 campaign. If there was proof that her campaign has had access to all of the DNC data during the entire campaign it wouldn't surprise me, the DNC and their pundits have clearly been trying to push the narrative that she is the presumed candidate, despite Sanders' surge in popularity, and I'm sure they're willing to do whatever they can to help her and prove themselves right. It doesn't really mean anything for Clinton's former CTO to say that he pinky-swears that their campaign never accessed the other side. It also makes no sense that anyone running a sensitive system would keep that system online while the firewall is offline for maintenance. If the data is important enough to have a firewall there, then before you take the firewall down you need to make sure that the data isn't going to be accessed or compromised in the meantime.
That data is how we print up lists of voters, addresses, phone numbers, and how we record people's reactions and what they care about.
Because you used "we" there, I'm curious if you're associated with Sanders' campaign, or for that matter Clinton's or even the DNC in general. If so, do you know the guy who accessed the data?...and is Chris Johnson your real name?
I'm just curious (about at least one of those questions, anyway), I've donated to Sanders myself.
17 weeks should be enough time for most women to figure out that they're pregnant, at least you would think so (certain news stories notwithstanding). Personally, my definition of a human life leans closer to the government's view, with a legal age, claiming dependents to the IRS, etc.
Even so, I suppose this entire debate will be over once medical science figures out how to continue a pregnancy without the assistance of the mother, so that the child can still be "born" and become viable and hopefully grow up in a good home. That may turn out to be an issue though as around 1.2 million abortions are performed in the US annually, but only about 135,000 children are adopted each year. So to make sure those other million babies have a decent life there would need to be a pretty massive youth support program in place to make sure that all of them get the food, housing, clothing, medical care, and education that they need until they're adults, and hopefully they can at least learn to depend on each other if they don't have the benefit of a family. That's going to require either a serious reshuffle of existing tax dollars, or new taxes, but if people care that much about stopping abortion then I'm sure they wouldn't mind paying a little extra to raise the extra million or so kids every year that are no longer being sucked into a vacuum when they were as big as a pea.
The writer at DataBreach indicated that she did not download the data set, because it contained personal information. That was in response to a comment asking if she went ahead and notified the users herself. It definitely sounds like the people running the site don't have a clue though. The week or so that it took them to secure the database was probably spent finding a person who knew how to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
So you don't care that literally the only thing that they're doing is forcing your phone to download the video stream slower? If they did nothing at all then you would have the same experience, but the file would download faster. That might mean that you can download a higher-quality video at the same rate, or you can set the quality lower as you please and download as fast as the network will allow.
Because the "yet-to-be-standard" names ... generally don't exist yet
So what? The browser gets to that line, it doesn't recognize that property name, and the browser ignores it. What's the problem? When a version gets released that supports it, then it will use the property.
No, that first comment is blaming...
because web developers were too lazy to do things right
when web sites see their numbers start to plummet cause no one can view their site properly, maybe they'll fix it with standards compliant code.
Except that's not what happens. Websites don't see their numbers plummet, browsers see their market share plummet when people notice the site works in one browser and not in another browser. Guess which of those 2 groups Firefox is finding themselves inside. They want to be in the other group, and they don't want to wait for website developers to get their shit together or else Firefox is going to go the same way as Netscape.
If Webkit doesn't want to comply
Webkit is following the standard just fine. The drafts clearly said that browser vendors should implement experimental properties with their own prefixes prior to things being finalized. Every major vendor has their own prefix that was used during that time. Those prefixes are no longer needed, but web developers still launch sites that have the -webkit prefix only, without support for any other browser. So, only Webkit browsers use that CSS, and other browsers look like shit because the web developers didn't bother to put the standard properties, only the prefixed properties. The problem is not browsers, it is lazy and/or incompetent website developers (again).
After re-reading what I wrote, I should clarify: the problem is with website developers, not browser or engine developers.
I don't think anyone is blaming Webkit for anything. The problem lies solely with the developers.
Lazy developers implemented those properties using the prefixed property, since that's all that was available at the time, but didn't go back to fix the code afterwards when the standard was finalized.
Is there a compelling reason to not include the yet-to-be-standard prefixes initially, even if no browsers supported them yet? It seems like any competent developer from the beginning of CSS3 should have included any vendor prefixes as well as the standard, and then they wouldn't have had to go back and "fix" anything, just remove the cruft.
At least at an initial glance, it seems to me that the criticisms about WebKit being "the new IE" are generally misplaced
It's a good analogy, in the sense that if a browser vendor doesn't support the -webkit properties then their browser may appear broken, due to incompetent developers using only those properties (i.e., things only supported by Webkit, just like they used to use things only supported by IE). It's an apt analogy, a de-facto "standard" created by incompetent developers not understanding the things they're using. It's not suggesting anything about the relative merits of the Webkit engine versus any version of IE.
You write "almost the 1st try every time" and it's my fail. Got it. 90% of the time your grammar makes sense every time.
that thing works maybe 90% of the time
my 6 reads my print almost the 1st try every time
So, Yogi Berra, is "almost the first try every time" more or less than "maybe 90%"?
Only idiots provide an uncapped CC card for the Apple store, and do not create free account for the childrens iPad.
Well, then it's a good thing that Apple products are marketed at power users and are not designed for "regular people" who want their devices to "just work" without having to think too hard about anything.
The KKK would not accept him as much as they wouldn't accept Obama.
What? Is that like "the little boat glided across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't"?
in my ex-USSR mind anybody, who willingly takes up the "Socialist" label ... belongs on a lamp-post
OK, so your mind is admittedly clouded by a strong (arguably irrational) negative bias. I'd say that was fairly obvious, but the admission is always nice. I could say that Sanders isn't suggesting that the US emulate the regime of the Soviets, but that probably wouldn't matter much if you don't make a distinction between different forms of socialism anyway.
I'm probably speaking to a brick wall here, but here's one thing: Sanders is not, and never has, advocated that the state should own the means of production.
I'm using /. to — quite successfully, as you see — tie Socialists to Hugo Chavez to reduce the danger of Leftism making further inroads in this country.
Oh, I didn't realize that. I just heard on CNN and Fox News this morning that someone on Slashdot was going around tying socialism to Hugo Chavez, and that was the reason why America is moving sharply to the right. I didn't realize that was you. I'm honored to meet someone so distinguished and influential.
First, many of his supporters are ahead. I'm not looking to Bernie to make me a millionaire, I'm looking for him to help me not be so embarrassed about living in the most wealthy country on the planet while we lock the future of our nation down in college debt. It's stupid. The single best thing we can do for the future of the country is to ensure that anyone who wants an education can get it. That would have an impact on things like crime, poverty, and homelessness that can't be overestimated. Likewise, I also believe that the wealthiest country on the planet has an obligation to make sure that anyone who is sick can get medical care. There is more than enough wealth in this country to pay for both of those programs. Between things like subsidies for oil companies, tax breaks and loopholes used by the largest banks and other people who do little more than move money from one place to another, and a military budget that is enough to patrol the entire world, believe me, we have enough money to pay for education and medical care for all of our citizens. If any country on this planet can do that, we can. Maybe our Navy doesn't need 19 aircraft carriers in service, with one more in reserve, 3 under construction, and another one ordered, when the rest of the world combined has a total of 20 carriers in service. Out of those other 20 aircraft carriers in the world, guess how many belong to our allies? Here's a hint: China has 1, and Russia has 1.
I don't agree with raising the minimum wage to $15, but that is mainly because I don't believe it would help.
I think it would help, but that it's not going to hit at the root of the problem. I think the root of the problem is high cost of education, if we switched to a free public education model then a minimum wage would be plenty to allow someone to get a college degree and get on with their life. Regardless though, I do think that minimum wage should be pegged to inflation, it should go up a little bit every year or two. The relative value that it has in society should be fairly stable, it's not fair when inflation rises and minimum wage doesn't, that doesn't help anything.
It shouldn't be surprising, his campaign has always been about connecting with individual voters, not large corporations or wealthy private donors. In the first debate when he was telling people to donate, his campaign was also sending emails to everyone who already had (where do you think they keep that data?). That is what that data is - who they've connected with and how. Obviously they counted on having that data available to them going forward, because people are willing to donate multiple times. My name is in there, too, along with many other people. Shortly before this story broke, yesterday he announced that they surpassed 2 million individual donations. You might not have heard that announcement, along with his endorsement by the Communication Workers union, because those announcements were pushed off the news cycle when the DNC suspended their access. That is and always has been the source of power driving his campaign, if you're surprised to hear them admit that (which they've been happy to admit since the beginning) then I don't think you're paying much attention.
6 Months ago both parties said "Jeb vs. Hillary" and today it's not quite so clear.
That was before all of the polls which showed that the only Republican candidate with the same level of negativity as Trump was Jeb Bush. He seemed kind of boring, but I didn't realize that so many Republicans actively dislike him so much. Months ago I was wanting to see an election with Bush vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Sanders, but I don't see that happening now. It would be more likely to be Cruz or Rubio, and at this point it sounds like Carson is also willing to go rogue.
If you have a question about how Sanders would be different from Chavez, then ask Sanders. ABC might have instructions on how to submit questions, but it sounds like you might need to use Twitter with #DemDebate. I'm sure by the start of the debate they'll tell you how to submit questions. That is, if you want an actual answer instead of just trolling Slashdot.
A majority of the country believes in so-called "socialist" policies, regardless of how those people want to label themselves. There's a reason why Bernie is so popular - he's saying what a lot of other people think. Incidentally, that's the exact same reason why Trump is so popular, except the exact opposite direction.
Sanders running as an independant would only result in President Trump.
You're making an awfully large assumption. What are we, 11 months away from the election? At this rate it still feels like the general election will be Cruz or Rubio vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Carson vs. Sanders. I don't think that would be a bad thing, either.
Democrats can't just sit out the election and hand it over to the Republicans if they don't get the candidate they like.
I'm not a Democrat, that's why I support Sanders and not Clinton. If Sanders doesn't run in the general election then I'll find a third-party candidate who sounds like they believe in what I do. I will cast my vote for the candidate who most represents me, regardless of how much or how little other people think my vote means. What I won't do is vote for someone that I don't believe in, and I don't believe in Clinton, I don't think she represents my interests any more than Donald Trump does. I refuse to cast a vote that is essentially a vote against someone else. I will either vote for someone who I feel represents me, or not at all. It would be a shame if there is no one who represents me, but with the support that Sanders has I find that outcome to be unlikely. I found a candidate in 2012 and I expect I'll be able to find one in 2016 also.
While we are all assuming this is a hatchet job to get Bernie locked out, these "intermittent firewall drops" could, in fact, be Hillary having arranged for her people to be able to spy on him - but nobody is mentioning that in the news articles.
Psh. You're only saying that because the co-owner of the vendor handling all of the data was Clinton's CTO in 2008. They don't need to go through the system to access that data, they can just have it handed straight to them.
P.S. 15 years as a network engineer and i still dont know why the press uses the term firewall so loosely.
It's a pretty loose term for something designed to provide security through separation. When software and network appliances for restricting access came to be, the name was borrowed from automotive or building construction.
I saw an interview with a female feminist Sanders supporter who said something memorable about why she was supporting Sanders and not Clinton:
"I want a woman to be president, but I don't want any woman to be president."
So, no, Clinton did not access any of the Sanders data, and yes, we do KNOW that. It's not speculation, it's a known fact.
...as dictated by Nathaniel Pearlman, co-owner of NGP-VAN (the company in charge of the data), and Hillary Clinton's chief technology officer for her 2008 campaign. Surely there's no conflict of interest there, right?
This should put a final end to the Sanders campaign
Except it won't, regardless of what shills like you tell everyone what "should" happen. You can bray all you want about how Hillary is going to win the general election, but it doesn't make it so until it actually happens. I support Sanders, but I won't vote for Clinton. If you think that all of Sanders' supporters are going to switch to Hillary if she gets the Democratic nomination then you're wrong. I would rather see Sanders run as an independent in the general election, he already has the name recognition and support that would have precluded a run like that if he hadn't been allowed to debate on TV.
But now we know the depths he'll stoop to in order to try for it anyway.
What we know is that he didn't "stoop" to any "depth". His volunteer in charge of data caught the vendor with the firewall down, allowing the Clinton campaign access to all of the Sanders data. We also know that shills like you will continue to try and make this into a loss for Sanders. We already know how Clinton works, this doesn't change our minds. We know that Sanders is trustworthy, and we know that Clinton is not. The DNC can try to handicap Sanders but he already has our support.
This whole thing stinks, it stinks because the co-owner of NGP VAN was Clinton's chief technology officer for her 2008 campaign. If there was proof that her campaign has had access to all of the DNC data during the entire campaign it wouldn't surprise me, the DNC and their pundits have clearly been trying to push the narrative that she is the presumed candidate, despite Sanders' surge in popularity, and I'm sure they're willing to do whatever they can to help her and prove themselves right. It doesn't really mean anything for Clinton's former CTO to say that he pinky-swears that their campaign never accessed the other side. It also makes no sense that anyone running a sensitive system would keep that system online while the firewall is offline for maintenance. If the data is important enough to have a firewall there, then before you take the firewall down you need to make sure that the data isn't going to be accessed or compromised in the meantime.
That data is how we print up lists of voters, addresses, phone numbers, and how we record people's reactions and what they care about.
Because you used "we" there, I'm curious if you're associated with Sanders' campaign, or for that matter Clinton's or even the DNC in general. If so, do you know the guy who accessed the data? ...and is Chris Johnson your real name?
I'm just curious (about at least one of those questions, anyway), I've donated to Sanders myself.
17 weeks should be enough time for most women to figure out that they're pregnant, at least you would think so (certain news stories notwithstanding). Personally, my definition of a human life leans closer to the government's view, with a legal age, claiming dependents to the IRS, etc.
Even so, I suppose this entire debate will be over once medical science figures out how to continue a pregnancy without the assistance of the mother, so that the child can still be "born" and become viable and hopefully grow up in a good home. That may turn out to be an issue though as around 1.2 million abortions are performed in the US annually, but only about 135,000 children are adopted each year. So to make sure those other million babies have a decent life there would need to be a pretty massive youth support program in place to make sure that all of them get the food, housing, clothing, medical care, and education that they need until they're adults, and hopefully they can at least learn to depend on each other if they don't have the benefit of a family. That's going to require either a serious reshuffle of existing tax dollars, or new taxes, but if people care that much about stopping abortion then I'm sure they wouldn't mind paying a little extra to raise the extra million or so kids every year that are no longer being sucked into a vacuum when they were as big as a pea.
The writer at DataBreach indicated that she did not download the data set, because it contained personal information. That was in response to a comment asking if she went ahead and notified the users herself. It definitely sounds like the people running the site don't have a clue though. The week or so that it took them to secure the database was probably spent finding a person who knew how to do that.