Slashdot is supposed to be an informal source for news. If we sanded off all the rough edges, Slashdot would cease being the site that I want to read. And I've been running this thing for 4.5 years now with the goal being to create a site that I wanted to read.
I agree with this. I think I first realized this in the Oscars news. Somebody complained that the story was "LotR only got" instead of "Beautiful Mind won" - and someone else replied that that is because that is what we geeks care about and want to read.
And that's true. Just keep doing things like you've always done them. It's the content that matters, the packaging is optional.
when i first saw this i though perhaps it was talking about zipping jpegs, which i just learned recently can save quite a bit of space (esp on ones created in photoshop)
I think the same result could be obtained by selecting the "exclude non-image data" option when saving jpeg files in photoshop.
That's for photoshop 5.0 and 5.5 I think - In photoshop 6.0 just make sure not to check the "thumbnail" option. Don't have a clue about 7, but the pattern should be obvious.
If you're already doing this then I don't see how zipping a jpeg file could save more space than perhaps 1-3%
Short run down of the linked-to article:
Non-compressed images have a large filesize and cost a lot of bandwidth, compressed images look almost as good and cost less bandwidth.
Guide to compress images in PSP 7: save, move slider.
conclusion: compressing is good, hope you found this useful.
*shakes his head sadly* Slow down are fine, but c'mon - we're geeks you know; we can be expected to at least know *some* things...
RC1 has bookmark groups - this means that with one bookmark you can open a large amount of pages that'll start loading in various tabs.
Also, as evidenced by bug 138000 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13800 0 - copy/paste yourself, no linking from slashdot allowed), we will almost certainly see a release candidate 2 before the final version of 1.0 will see the light. (Though I could imagine RC1 performing so well that they'll integrate RC2 with 1.0 final after all.)
Yes, these are the bugs we whine about nowadays. It's really pathetic. For the longest time everybody could at least rely on being able to seriously complain about 40867 (the view source from post operation bug), but now that's... *sobs*... fixed.
We honestly don't know what to do anymore... It's really bad. Sure, there are some minor issues, and we can always work on making things even more standards compliant and adding some other nifty features and polishing, but basically... *wipes away tears*...basically Mozilla is just the best damn browser out there and we're reduced to these petty (but very important!) bugs.:-)
Only IE 4+ or a mozilla based browser:
if (!(is.ie4up) && !(is.nav6up)) {document.location.href="sorry.php"}
And the site is using a version of the ultimate javascript client sniffer so this has been a pretty conscious decision. I can somewhat imagine. Although the site doesn't look that spectacular, style probably is everything there...
Not to mention those goddamn ads that get in your face. Has anyone figured out how to uninstall Flash from Internet Explorer?
Switch to Mozilla and add a line saying
object { display: none; }
to your user stylesheet. - better than uninstalling since it let's you easily turn flash back on the extremely rare sites where it's actually used somewhat usefully.
And go and vote for bug 94035 and related (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94035 - copy/paste since bugzilla doesn't allow linking from slashdot) to see per site blocking of all types of content.
Or you could hope to someday see the same for IE, in which case I wish you happy waiting...:)
And since chillingeffects seems to be slashdotted, here are the Google Cache links to the chillingeffects documents about Google removing the links to... AARRGH!
*blip* *blip* *blip*
Out of cheese error!
Cannot find drive Z:
Please reboot universe.
Hmm, actually, those two links don't seem to have been cached yet. However, this one has: noticeid=232
You're confusing the exception with the rule. I don't really care one way or the other, but don't kid yourself that the availability of free music somehow increases sales of non-free music.
Are you certain it doesn't? There are a lot of 'exceptions' out there. I'm another one. (And looking at most of my friends, they're 'exceptions' as well.) And in response another thing you said, I'm also a 'poor' student.
Sure, there are a lot of kids out there who're just downloading like crazy (never even listening to most of the stuff they hoard), but I'd rather think they are the exceptions.
The thing is, there is an almost garauntee that some block of code within Bnetd will resemble some block of code in Blizzards server software in some significant manner, simply because the two programs do the exact same thing. So Blizzard can point to that and say 'See! This whole thing was obviously ripped off from us via illegal hacker tactics and stuff!'
Wasn't there a 13% rule or something, that said if two pieces of [whatever] differed by at least 13% (defined how?) then it wasn't copyright violation?
I honestly have no idea where that snippet of info comes from, but I'm pretty positive I remember somethign liek that existing... Could someone clarify / explain what's the difference between the case on whicht hat applies and this?
Right. Just like every previous Outlook virus killed all other outlook viruses that worked on the same principles, and just like every worm making use of long-known IIS vulnerabilities killed all other worms that made use of other well-known IIS vulnerabilities.
The only thing this happening would cause is make some people commit suicide because they wouldn't be able to play Everquest anymore;-) - and perhaps if trouble lasted long enough it might make other people start to read a good book for a change.:-)
All that said, I don't see the JPEG2k standard really succeeding--now that more and more users are getting faster and faster connections, there's not that much need for the smaller filesizes.
However, at the same time that endusers are getting faster connections, more and more webmasters are starting to feel the very real pain of bandwidth costs. I think the adoption of smaller image formats will come more from their side.
If jpeg2000 makes enough of a difference, I can see at least a very large percentage of graphics oriented sites switching - almost forcing the users to follow suit.
I'm helping you hope. However, there hasn't been any activity during the last day in bug 30888 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30888 (linking from slashdot blocked so you'll have to copy/paste manually) - which I assume is the bug you're talking about), and one of the recent comments makes me fear the worst:
I think this is an interesting feature and if it had landed earlier, I would be much more in favor of taking this. I think that taking this now for either Mozilla 1.0 or Mach V is risky. I think this should be landed as part of 1.1alpha and given time to bake on the trunk.
Still, we can hope. I know I'm definitely hoping.
The Mozilla mail client is already my default mail program, but this single feature would remove any doubt about it being the single most _useful_ client out there.
To do it right, you have to start a new thread (to make it less obvious that you're ripping someone off) and you can't have the word 'karma' in your post.
You can actually use the word karma in your post. Just write it like "This'll probably be modded down because of karma-whoring, but...":-)
Reverse-reverse-reverse psychology and all that...
Key is to MAKE SURE YOU ARE RUNNING A SOFTWARE FIREWALL
*sighs wistfully* Anyone else remember the good ol' days when you'd run a firewall to keep the bad guy outside from coming in?
Nowadays it's all about preventing the bad stuff which is already inside from getting out.
It's times like this that I'm glad I don't use anything besides Mozilla
Are you absolutely certain? The article says: "automatically change the appearance of Web browsers, usurping some of the functions built into popular browsers designed by Microsoft Corp. and Netscape Communications, a unit of AOL Time Warner Inc."
and: "Netscape already lets people customize its browsers. Its client-customization kit lets Internet-service providers and others insert their logos to replace the Netscape logo in the browser toolbar, or insert specific bookmarks."
Of course, from all that I know about Mozilla there's no way a website is going to be just allowed to install and switch to a different theme (though who knows what sort of extra 'features' might be added in Netscape releases...), and even if there was it'd be fixed nearly instantaniously in Mozilla, but Netscape/Mozilla definitely does seem like a target for this product.
What I'm mostly interested in right now however is seeing some screenshots of for example those weather.com tests on various browsers... Anyone out there reading this who just happens to be a beta-tester / in the know /...?
Mozilla custom keywords. One of the most underrated features of Mozilla.
I've set up a few dozen keywords so far, ranging from "dic whatever" to search for 'whatever' at dictionary.com to "bug 123456" to search for bug 123456 in bugzilla.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot is supposed to be an informal source for news. If we sanded off all the rough edges, Slashdot would cease being the site that I want to read. And I've been running this thing for 4.5 years now with the goal being to create a site that I wanted to read.
:-)
I agree with this. I think I first realized this in the Oscars news. Somebody complained that the story was "LotR only got" instead of "Beautiful Mind won" - and someone else replied that that is because that is what we geeks care about and want to read.
And that's true. Just keep doing things like you've always done them. It's the content that matters, the packaging is optional.
Ah well, so much for the blackout for me...
when i first saw this i though perhaps it was talking about zipping jpegs, which i just learned recently can save quite a bit of space (esp on ones created in photoshop)
I think the same result could be obtained by selecting the "exclude non-image data" option when saving jpeg files in photoshop.
That's for photoshop 5.0 and 5.5 I think - In photoshop 6.0 just make sure not to check the "thumbnail" option. Don't have a clue about 7, but the pattern should be obvious.
If you're already doing this then I don't see how zipping a jpeg file could save more space than perhaps 1-3%
Slow days, slow days... not slow down. :)
Though I should slow down with typing. No time though - must read more pointless articles...
Gah, and then of course I replied within the two minute delay with the "Slow Down Cowboy!" message - how appropriate.
Short run down of the linked-to article:
Non-compressed images have a large filesize and cost a lot of bandwidth, compressed images look almost as good and cost less bandwidth.
Guide to compress images in PSP 7: save, move slider.
conclusion: compressing is good, hope you found this useful.
*shakes his head sadly* Slow down are fine, but c'mon - we're geeks you know; we can be expected to at least know *some* things...
*kicks self* Must not post while tired - bookmark groups _are_ mentioned in the release notes.
RC1 has bookmark groups - this means that with one bookmark you can open a large amount of pages that'll start loading in various tabs.
0 0 - copy/paste yourself, no linking from slashdot allowed), we will almost certainly see a release candidate 2 before the final version of 1.0 will see the light. (Though I could imagine RC1 performing so well that they'll integrate RC2 with 1.0 final after all.)
Also, as evidenced by bug 138000 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1380
these are serious 1.0 stopping features???
... fixed. ...basically Mozilla is just the best damn browser out there and we're reduced to these petty (but very important!) bugs. :-)
Yes, these are the bugs we whine about nowadays. It's really pathetic. For the longest time everybody could at least rely on being able to seriously complain about 40867 (the view source from post operation bug), but now that's... *sobs*
We honestly don't know what to do anymore... It's really bad. Sure, there are some minor issues, and we can always work on making things even more standards compliant and adding some other nifty features and polishing, but basically... *wipes away tears*
Too bad the main site *requires* winxx or mac
Only IE 4+ or a mozilla based browser:
if (!(is.ie4up) && !(is.nav6up)) {document.location.href="sorry.php"}
And the site is using a version of the ultimate javascript client sniffer so this has been a pretty conscious decision. I can somewhat imagine. Although the site doesn't look that spectacular, style probably is everything there...
Of course not... they're busy writing graphical programs for creating Flash development tools.
Not to mention those goddamn ads that get in your face. Has anyone figured out how to uninstall Flash from Internet Explorer?
5 - copy/paste since bugzilla doesn't allow linking from slashdot) to see per site blocking of all types of content.
:)
Switch to Mozilla and add a line saying
object { display: none; }
to your user stylesheet. - better than uninstalling since it let's you easily turn flash back on the extremely rare sites where it's actually used somewhat usefully.
And go and vote for bug 94035 and related (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9403
Or you could hope to someday see the same for IE, in which case I wish you happy waiting...
The Dutch Google doesn't have the DMCA notice either. I wonder what's up with them Italians...
And since chillingeffects seems to be slashdotted, here are the Google Cache links to the chillingeffects documents about Google removing the links to ... AARRGH!
*blip* *blip* *blip*
Out of cheese error!
Cannot find drive Z:
Please reboot universe.
Hmm, actually, those two links don't seem to have been cached yet. However, this one has:
noticeid=232
You're confusing the exception with the rule. I don't really care one way or the other, but don't kid yourself that the availability of free music somehow increases sales of non-free music.
Are you certain it doesn't? There are a lot of 'exceptions' out there. I'm another one. (And looking at most of my friends, they're 'exceptions' as well.) And in response another thing you said, I'm also a 'poor' student.
Sure, there are a lot of kids out there who're just downloading like crazy (never even listening to most of the stuff they hoard), but I'd rather think they are the exceptions.
The thing is, there is an almost garauntee that some block of code within Bnetd will resemble some block of code in Blizzards server software in some significant manner, simply because the two programs do the exact same thing. So Blizzard can point to that and say 'See! This whole thing was obviously ripped off from us via illegal hacker tactics and stuff!'
Wasn't there a 13% rule or something, that said if two pieces of [whatever] differed by at least 13% (defined how?) then it wasn't copyright violation?
I honestly have no idea where that snippet of info comes from, but I'm pretty positive I remember somethign liek that existing... Could someone clarify / explain what's the difference between the case on whicht hat applies and this?
Right. Just like every previous Outlook virus killed all other outlook viruses that worked on the same principles, and just like every worm making use of long-known IIS vulnerabilities killed all other worms that made use of other well-known IIS vulnerabilities.
;-) - and perhaps if trouble lasted long enough it might make other people start to read a good book for a change. :-)
The only thing this happening would cause is make some people commit suicide because they wouldn't be able to play Everquest anymore
All that said, I don't see the JPEG2k standard really succeeding--now that more and more users are getting faster and faster connections, there's not that much need for the smaller filesizes.
However, at the same time that endusers are getting faster connections, more and more webmasters are starting to feel the very real pain of bandwidth costs. I think the adoption of smaller image formats will come more from their side.
If jpeg2000 makes enough of a difference, I can see at least a very large percentage of graphics oriented sites switching - almost forcing the users to follow suit.
Indeed! Long live Asciimation! :)
I'm helping you hope. However, there hasn't been any activity during the last day in bug 30888 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30888 (linking from slashdot blocked so you'll have to copy/paste manually) - which I assume is the bug you're talking about), and one of the recent comments makes me fear the worst:
I think this is an interesting feature and if it had landed earlier, I would be much more in favor of taking this. I think that taking this now for either Mozilla 1.0 or Mach V is risky. I think this should be landed as part of 1.1alpha and given time to bake on the trunk.
Still, we can hope. I know I'm definitely hoping.
The Mozilla mail client is already my default mail program, but this single feature would remove any doubt about it being the single most _useful_ client out there.
To do it right, you have to start a new thread (to make it less obvious that you're ripping someone off) and you can't have the word 'karma' in your post.
:-)
You can actually use the word karma in your post. Just write it like "This'll probably be modded down because of karma-whoring, but..."
Reverse-reverse-reverse psychology and all that...
Tanenbaum? You mean that guy who already knew Linux was obsolete back in '92? ;)
:)
(I figure there'll always be some newbies who've never read that debate...)
Key is to MAKE SURE YOU ARE RUNNING A SOFTWARE FIREWALL
*sighs wistfully* Anyone else remember the good ol' days when you'd run a firewall to keep the bad guy outside from coming in?
Nowadays it's all about preventing the bad stuff which is already inside from getting out.
Ah well, that's progress I guess...
It's times like this that I'm glad I don't use anything besides Mozilla
...?
Are you absolutely certain? The article says: "automatically change the appearance of Web browsers, usurping some of the functions built into popular browsers designed by Microsoft Corp. and Netscape Communications, a unit of AOL Time Warner Inc."
and: "Netscape already lets people customize its browsers. Its client-customization kit lets Internet-service providers and others insert their logos to replace the Netscape logo in the browser toolbar, or insert specific bookmarks."
Of course, from all that I know about Mozilla there's no way a website is going to be just allowed to install and switch to a different theme (though who knows what sort of extra 'features' might be added in Netscape releases...), and even if there was it'd be fixed nearly instantaniously in Mozilla, but Netscape/Mozilla definitely does seem like a target for this product.
What I'm mostly interested in right now however is seeing some screenshots of for example those weather.com tests on various browsers... Anyone out there reading this who just happens to be a beta-tester / in the know /
And a big "thumbs up" to everyone who modded this up! A perfect response on this day. :)
I shudder to think what would happen if today would see real news akin to this...
Mozilla custom keywords. One of the most underrated features of Mozilla.
I've set up a few dozen keywords so far, ranging from "dic whatever" to search for 'whatever' at dictionary.com to "bug 123456" to search for bug 123456 in bugzilla.
Nice Aprils Fools joke for next year - show all modding as either +1 Funny or -1 Funny, regardless of what it was in reality. :)