That's the answer, then. Everbody who matters is reading the site with their smartphones. Only "old people" use desktops and laptops and who cares about them?
I don't give a damn on way or the other about the "design" but the clipping and the painfully slow scrolling (even with JS off) plus all the other bugs is enough to make me quit Slashdot if it isn't fixed.
That will go away if you reduce your minimum font size down to where you can't read the text without taking your glasses off and pressing your nose to the screen.
> Is shaving off the left edge of every article part of the plan...
As I suspected. It's a plot to drive off us old codgers by screwing up the site for anyone who selects a minimum font size larger than 12. Quite popular around the intertubes these days (or maybe it's sheer incompetence. That's quite popular too.)
> What prevents me from posting a picture of Angelina Jolie as my FB profile picture?
Nothing. She might be able to sue you (celebrities have enhanced rights in their images) but I doubt she would bother even if she (or rather her agent) found out. I suppose she might send takedown notices if her image started appearing in thousands of profiles.
> Do you think she would be happy having her face used in a Starbucks ad?
Certainly. She'd be able to collect quite a bit of money from Starbucks.
BTW you do realize that these "ads" are to be shown only to your Facebook "friends", don't you? They are not talking about billboards or television.
A few years back CenturyTel started pushing all my email through Postini without any notice. As a direct result I quit using that account. During the first three days the filtering was in effect it passed 50% of the spam and stopped half a dozen valid messages. They provided no way to turn it off completely: just a couple of "aggressiveness" settings.
Are you seriously suggesting that he do something HIMSELF? Outrageous! What is government for except to see to it that he gets what he wants (free, of course)? Pretty soon you will be suggesting that people should do things without permission!
1.5Mb does everything I need and I'm not about to pay for more just because some dork thinks I need it or because some other dork is embarassed that "ZOMG the USA arn't in 1st place!!1!" I know people who are satisfied with dialup. They are not "deprived". They know what they want and they have it.
I don't have a Facebook account, but that part of the ToS that you see on those sites is to allow them to provide the service by publishing the materials you provide.
They don't need that. Such permission is implicit.
> Well, yes. The curious thing is why anybody would agree to this in the first place.
Possibly because they are different from you and so don't share all your concerns and values. I have no Facebook account either but I don't object to other people having one.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the answer, then. Everbody who matters is reading the site with their smartphones. Only "old people" use desktops and laptops and who cares about them?
I don't give a damn on way or the other about the "design" but the clipping and the painfully slow scrolling (even with JS off) plus all the other bugs is enough to make me quit Slashdot if it isn't fixed.
I've got JS blocked and scrolling is still painfully slow. How do they do that?
Also almost every comment shows a score of 1.
> The left side of the frame is all clipped...
That will go away if you reduce your minimum font size down to where you can't read the text without taking your glasses off and pressing your nose to the screen.
The increase in pixel density doesn't change the size of a point.
Yes. Scrolling is now noticeably sluggish here.
> Is shaving off the left edge of every article part of the plan...
As I suspected. It's a plot to drive off us old codgers by screwing up the site for anyone who selects a minimum font size larger than 12. Quite popular around the intertubes these days (or maybe it's sheer incompetence. That's quite popular too.)
Is shaving off the left edge of every article part of the plan, or just a bonus?
> What prevents me from posting a picture of Angelina Jolie as my FB profile picture?
Nothing. She might be able to sue you (celebrities have enhanced rights in their images) but I doubt she would bother even if she (or rather her agent) found out. I suppose she might send takedown notices if her image started appearing in thousands of profiles.
> Do you think she would be happy having her face used in a Starbucks ad?
Certainly. She'd be able to collect quite a bit of money from Starbucks.
BTW you do realize that these "ads" are to be shown only to your Facebook "friends", don't you? They are not talking about billboards or television.
A few years back CenturyTel started pushing all my email through Postini without any notice. As a direct result I quit using that account. During the first three days the filtering was in effect it passed 50% of the spam and stopped half a dozen valid messages.
They provided no way to turn it off completely: just a couple of "aggressiveness" settings.
Why would any spammer pay that much when they can rent a botnet?
Spamassassin works fine here.
DSL is, for a number of reasons, a short-range technology. Many rural phone lines are too long for it.
So do it.
We've had it for four or five years. It was available for several years before that.
Are you seriously suggesting that he do something HIMSELF? Outrageous! What is government for except to see to it that he gets what he wants (free, of course)? Pretty soon you will be suggesting that people should do things without permission!
1.5Mb does everything I need and I'm not about to pay for more just because some dork thinks I need it or because some other dork is embarassed that "ZOMG the USA arn't in 1st place!!1!" I know people who are satisfied with dialup. They are not "deprived". They know what they want and they have it.
Just wail until Apple comes out with iGlasses. Then they'll be cool.
He may have infringed the copyright but what he did has nothing whatsoever to do with the DMCA.
This is what contingency fees and class action lawsuits are for.
I know people who avoid using cars or gasoline-powered vehicles. I myself find not using Microsoft products quite easy.
They don't need that. Such permission is implicit.
Then that other person might have grounds for a suit against Facebook.
> Well, yes. The curious thing is why anybody would agree to this in the first place.
Possibly because they are different from you and so don't share all your concerns and values. I have no Facebook account either but I don't object to other people having one.