Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×


Re:Interestin--I just moved and downgraded too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227800)

I just moved also, I live in utah and basically I cant get any kind of a high speed connection,

when I moved it downgraded me from a 51K connection to a 26.4K connection.

so basically I cant do anything!!!! well actually I do alot still amazenly.

I chat, in a multitude of ways, I download stuff with my shell and then drive to my isp and fetch it.

I setup squid on my local linux box, so it is fast to load slashdot

Re:Done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227802)

You rock.

Re:Excess font tags - inquiry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227803)

Learn to use style sheets. The font tag should never be used as it is horrible. Look at [the HTML 4.01 spec] [] and [the CSS-1 spec] [] .

Look at [my site] [] for an example - no font tags at all. This is in pure XHTML 1.0, which is an XML extension of HTML 4.01. Sorry about the image borders - the border parameter of the img tag isn't allowed in XHTML 1.0, and yet Netscape seems not to understand the style sheet line that removes it. Works in IE 5.0 though...

Re:Tight coding contests in history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227805)

Not quite. HTML is a markup language. Like RTF or a StarOffice document. Unless you mean that nasty beast javascript or VBscript.

Re:Mitnicks only failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227809)

Offtopic, but very interesting nonetheless. I had heard there was one machine he couldn't crack, but I didn't know what it was. Thanks for the link

Re:Done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227810)

+5 Funny! Great job Grits guy!

Re:Done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227811)

Do you Realize this was posted parody was posted quite a while ago, right? at it recieved a +5 then, right? How many times to I bloddy hae to look at it?


Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227813)

Why? Look in the dictionary under the definition of "off topic", and you will find a picture of that post.

Re:Praise Jefus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227817)

Now you've done it. He'll post one just for spite, now. :-/

Small Demos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227818)

I remember a few years back an IRC channel (#asm I think) held a 256-byte fire compo. The winning entries were packaged in a zipfile, but I forgot the filename! It was really great--there was even a 3D fire in there! None of them had sound, though.

Slash Dot Light Rules! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227819)

can we make this a permament thing? Its much faster than the usual graphics.

Re:yakada yakada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227827)

and you cant spell the word "jackass"

Re:Tight coding contests in history (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227829)

How about this for tight code? It is my favorite as it is the smallest I've ever seen.

E 0100 B8 07 0E CD 10 C3

Enter the above in DEBUG on a DOS/WinDoze PC, and you end up with a six byte executable.

It makes your speaker beep once.

No.1 reason not to use frontpage (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227830)

Sorry to post as AC but i have forgotten my passwd

It is amazing what you can do with pure html and highly compressed gifs/jpegs nowdays. Who needs to use Frontpage or dreamweaver just to convey information....

Oh yeah - page crashes Mozilla on win32 -doug

hahaha! (1)

RatBastard (949) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227831)

No THAT was damned funny!

Re:Happy memories... (1)

Evangelion (2145) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227835)

It took you hours to find the Mosaic Grey with XV?

  1. Hit grab
  2. Grab a section of the mosaic window (or the whole thing, if you're lazy)
  3. Once the screenshot has loaded, then hold the middle button down on some grey, and the color codes appear at the bottom.

Takes me like 3 seconds...

And what does #c3c3c3 translate to? I remember that that was the 'perfect' Netscape grey under X11, so I imagine that translates to 192,192,192, as both Netscape & Mosaic use Motif...

Ahh, the memories.

Now, if can only get strn set so it doesn't puke on @Home's news servers, I can go back there... large white xterms with the fixed and trn... those were the days...

Re:Tight coding contests in history (1)

kenh (9056) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227843)

These programs were allowed/able to be up to 240+ characters. The real perversions started when people started using "puctuation equivalents" for BASIC keywords and encoding assembler subroutines!

Note: The contest web page fits in 2940 bytes...

not bad.


OT: I want to see classic demos! (1)

Serf (11805) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227853)

But all I have here is a Linux box, and not a single copy of DOS to put on it (even if I had space available for a partition) - and that's not even considering Amiga / C64 /other? demos. Are there any emulators or anything else that could help me out here?

Re:Tight coding contests in history (1)

RAruler (11862) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227854)

This page weighs 3.51K and validates to 4.0 Transitional.

elegant equations (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227855)

And consider terse equations in math and physics
with lots of meaning, e.g.
E = m c c,
-1 = exp (i pi),
Maxwell's equations.

Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (1)

Julius X (14690) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227857)

The page it links to, x.html []

was the one I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.

-Julius X

Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (1)

Julius X (14690) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227859)

This exactly what I mean. I can't vouch with you on the POS line, I have ethernet here, but I know that people do, and I respect that.

My current homepage, at was purposely done in almost no graphic or design elements, because that way anyone can view it. Some of the more content-oriented pages end up over 5k, but it's all in text, no flash, graphics, or javascript code... and it works on any
browser. (I happen to use IE5 when I'm on Windows, but my reasoning for that is that IE is a hell of a lot more standards-compliant than Netscape 4.xx ever has been--I'm looking forward to Mozilla).

Now most websites look nice on a graphical browser, but almost none of them give the option for a low-bandwidth version. I think that even if a site wants to pile on the DHTML, Images, and whatever else could be added to make the site look nice, they should still be giving a nice, clean, simple, 100% compatible, text-based alternative.

(Considering most of my web-related work is graphic design......this probably sounds a little ironic comng from me )

-Julius X

Re:You can do neat stuff with just text... (1)

stx23 (14942) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227860)

Well, you CAN.... look at for an example.
It's 17.5Kb
Mind you, I'm not surprised it's fat and bloated, nor am I surprised his page is...

Re:Use scripts (1)

stx23 (14942) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227861)

Alternatively, you could use PerlScript and write the whole page in obfuscated Perl. And which browser is it that supports PerlScript out of the box?
bet it ain't one that any of the judges will be using.

Except (1)

jawad (15611) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227862)

Except, Rob, you can't use SSI. sorry! you'd be disqualified.

My entry (1)

Bio (18940) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227868)


Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (1)

QuMa (19440) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227871)

I went to your homepage, and one of the images alone is nearly 30kb, so I doubt it's 3199 bytes...

Re:Get hired! (1)

QuMa (19440) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227873)

try telnet

Re:5K - C'mon..... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227879)

Heheh. I seem to recall that on M$' homepage, there was the logo - it weighed in at 666 bytes!

So, perhaps now we see the return of web pages with actual content, and smallish GIFs.

I'd love to see the results of this contest (I have a 56k modem, and have access to a LAN connection [LAN is more troublesome, having to lug laptop around]).

The contest rules don't make sense !!! (1)

loom (35551) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227881)

The rules don't make sense.. How can a page be fully contained and use images ? An image is included by the client and therefore is "external" to the HTML file.

Maybe they'd like to clarify the rules on this point...

Re:The contest rules don't make sense !!! (1)

Enoch Root (57473) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227885)

The point is, the whole of the website should weight in at less than 5K. That includes all images. You should be able to download everything, not amount to more than 5K, and be able to work offline with it.

That's why pulling images from somewhere else through scripts, for instance, doesn't cut it. It's 5K, HTML + images.

Re:Use scripts (1)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227887)

what about writing a small piece of javascript that would decompress the page ??
something like this:

String thePage="-lots of crap-";
{small decompression algorithm here}

since plain text can be compress fairly well it would be possible to use more than 5K of HTML and then compress it this way.


Re:Flash! (1)

kootch (81702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227895)

gotta love descrimination of browsers and plug-ins.

when the judge doesn't have the plug-in, you lost.

Re:Flash! (1)

kootch (81702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227896)

yes, you could make quite the nifty page using Macromedia Flash... and the code of the page would be 3k for all of the detection javascript, and the flash file would most definitely be over the 5k limit.

Re:Use scripts (1)

kootch (81702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227897)

I think they had a rule against pulling from other pages... all had to be self-contained.

you could make a javascript that writes more tables and code... through in some kewl color cell stuff, refresh codes... make it really dynamic.

but what about CONTENT (something most of the web is lacking)?

it's a great idea (1)

kootch (81702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227898)

I try to challenge myself sometimes as a web developer to actually make pages with one table, no embeded tables, or find kewl ways to make 3 color pages (black, white, color)...

I think my personal site is a total of 30k... with about 10 pages under it... but that has frames.

it's great to have this as a contest, and i hope that a lot of design houses see this contest, see some great results, and maybe start considering this as a design MOVEMENT instead of as a trivialty. It would be nice to have a corporate website load in under 5 seconds no matter what modem you're on, and if it can look good in under 20k, that says something.

include directives (1)

Dios (83038) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227899)

You could include all of your menus/etc in include directives.. tables for shading.. hell, including the menus with include directives would allow quite a savings across a lot...with only 5k should be able to do quite a bit...

Re:Small programs (1)

B1 (86803) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227901)

Actually, the CBM BASIC interpreter would store your program in a tokenized form, regardless of whether you entered 'G shift-O' or GOTO. Every BASIC command was represented by an integer token, and converted to text on the fly when you type 'LIST'. This was to save on memory (why store the text 'GOTO' when you can store a one-byte token to mean the same thing?) This may have even sped up the interpreter a little bit, by simplifying the run-time parser.

I remember some interesting one-liners where they used the short-forms liberally to squeeze more statements into one program line (limited to 80 characters total). When you listed the program, the lines would expand past 80 characters on the display, so you couldn't go back and edit them.

I remember another neat program called "list-me", which was a whole bunch of REM statements containing cursor control keystrokes and graphics. When you typed 'LIST', you'd get a short animation of a flying saucer destroying a city.

The next step... (1)

MasterMnd (95596) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227902)

...a usable webbrowser in under a meg? :)

Re:Tight coding contests in history (1)

WD (96061) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227903)

One of my favorite old demos is from a 64k contest. It's called Stash []
Anyone still owning a Gravis Ultrasound will enjoy this one! (no ultrasound = no sound, but still amazing)

Re:Use scripts (1)

benjamin_scarlet (99428) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227905)

No, the entry must be self-contained.

A Place For Inspiration (1)

benenglish (107150) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227906)

I'm not kidding, here. For inspiration that applies to this contest, check /. for the Beacon School piece that was posted a couple of stories back. I went to their site and opened a whole bunch of the student home pages. Some of them seem to have just discovered frames, some have blown off the whole idea, and some of them include so many animations they make look dignified. BUT - Some of them have small, simple pages that communicate elegantly without being simplistic. I will definitely rip inspiration from some of those pages for my on-the-job html.

Re:Tight coding contests in history (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227908)

Hm. Not the Atari ones, I think. The Atari physical line size was forty characters, and a logical line was slightly less than three lines.

Or am I misremembering?
Time to dust off (and restore!) the old Atari 400, I think.

Hmmn.. (1)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227912)

My site is 500K gzipped with max compression (Doh) lol. Of course I have some 100K jpegs.. :-) hehe. 1024x768 jpgs. Hmmn. Without images its *very* lightweight and acehives a lot of those simplicity goals without being *TO* ugly. ( i was being lazy to.. soo :-) Anyways. it weighs in at like 15K total without images. I could condense it even more if I made more of it php3. Do loops for my table rows and just do a big case/if elif el structure to stick the images.. thatd cut down the site by prolly 1K right there. But if you cant hang with 15K or so im sorry :-)

Re:Hmmn.. (1)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227913)

lol I just realized how silly my comment was.. The actual html it generates would be just about as large. lol. sorry. My page is zero fluff.. only pictures are pictures of me being silly and all. :-) You can do some pretty awesome stuff with style sheets.. I dont think you need anything but very small pictures to achieve awesome site design :-) If clients want fluff.. its even easier to do :p

What about a "Readable Websites"-contest? (1)

Mekanix (127309) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227914)

It's getting harder and harder to find to find websites where you can navigate and read the contenst.

Whatever happened to [] to make links?

Today it's just bloated, buggy M$-java all over the place. It seems like no webdesigner knows a single word of HTML.


Flash! (1)

DavidpFitz (136265) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227915)

Heheh... I bet you could get quite a nifty page using Macromedia Flash!

Re:Flash! (1)

DavidpFitz (136265) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227916)

Sure, but almost everyone does have it. And since the judges are "IT professionals" the chances are they have it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Playing safe never won anything. Okay, maybe something, but it's not going to win this!

Re:Flash! (1)

DavidpFitz (136265) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227917)

Maybe, but have you ever just tried knocking something like foo.swf on whatever site straight into the address bar... surprise, surprise, it works. No HTML required. And if you do want to put it into HTML, you don't have to check for the plug-in. If you're a little daring, and assume it's there, you can do away with a hell of a lot of code - no more than enbedding an image. And, if the plug-in isn't there, well it doesn't work. but, hey, with only 5k you can't be too careful!

This comment is under 5k (1)

hikari (142972) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227920)

Maybe a haiku?



5K - C'mon..... (1)

tubs (143128) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227921)

It shouldn't be that difficult

The first webpage I ever wrote was designed using LYNX, I thought it was easy to navigate and actually looked quite good....this was before tables and frames though.

When I mangaged to get access to a graphical browser the only thing that changed for me was I put GIFS for buttons and line breaks

5000 characters can get you quite a lot of text, who needs GIFS and JPEGS, as long as what you design is clear, neat and does the job.

Re:The contest rules don't make sense !!! (1)

ZikZak (153813) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227923)

I'm assuming you're being a bonehead and not facetious.

Everything required for the page to display in your browser must be less than a 5k download. No SSI, php, perl, asp, etc.

Re:Done (1)

ZikZak (153813) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227924)

Deserves a 4.5 rating (lost .5 for being way over 5k).

Re:I nominate... Transmeta (1)

teus (155555) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227925)

I would definitely agree that the pre-announcement Transmeta page had to set some sort of record in the "bang for the buck" category, but ...

I seem to remember that there was a full screen image. Or is my memory failing?

Can anyone confirm, either way?

If there wasn't a graphic, I think who ever wrote it/owns the copyright (probably the corporation) SHOULD submit it, it is a classic.

Remember the Beagle Bros.? (1)

mmaddox (155681) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227926)

...that old Apple II company that sold utils and whatnot used to have the BEST catalogs. They came out monthly with tons of neat one liners in Apple Basic. They even sold a compilation floppy with all their one-liner contest winners.

Sigh. The good ol' days, no?

Re:yakada yakada (1)

summdood (157002) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227927)

apparently you can not count to one, and you spelt 'looser' incorrectly.

You can do neat stuff with just text... (1)

C@ptCaveman (159165) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227929)

Well, you CAN.... look at for an example. (I have NOT checked the size on it, but he did it all with text and tables, and it's quite useful. I imagine it shouldn't be TOO difficult to make something like that (or better) in 5k. Of course, this assumes that you have any skils at HTML and the like :) ...anybody know how big that stupid "hamster dance" page is? (heh heh)

Done (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1227931)

Here it is [] . thank you

Happy memories... (2)

slim (1652) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227932)

Aaaah, I remember the days: NCSA Mosaic. We'd spend hours in XV, trying to reduce the colour depth to 4 bits, or 3...

And the hours we spent finding the perfect Mosaic Grey (in the absence of transparent GIFs) (192R,192G,192B, in case you're interested: but not on Macs)

Too Bad About Server-Side (2)

waldoj (8229) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227934)

It would be nice if there were a contest like this that permitted server-specific entries. I can appreciate the value of this contest as it exists, but I'd have a lot more fun (see my business partner's page [] -- yes, it's supposed to look like that) if I could enjoy the wonders of PHP and MySQL.

Anybody wanna start a contest? :)

5K, no problem... (2)

kenh (9056) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227935)

In my graduate web design class we were given the challenge to develop an interesting/useful web page in one file . Compared to that exercise, this seems easy. I made an ASCII art car that raced from side to side (in less than 512 bytes, IIRC)!

This will be interesting to watch...

I think this is great (2)

trance9 (10504) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227937)

My whole site is only 18k, with each page weighing in at around 2-3k. I don't think you need any graphics to make a useful website. Of course I'm not a designer so my pages are just plain and simple--but I like that. [] : just plain text with some tables and some fonts and colours.

Do WAP pages count? (2)

K. (10774) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227938)

Try designing for the the 1397-byte buffer on the
Nokia 7110. Now that's fun.


Word? (2)

Pope (17780) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227942)

try 28k :P
Word 2000 uses XML for everything, and I constantly get file in MS-HTML that I have to strip down and redo.


CBM token (2)

Pope (17780) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227943)

another use of REM'd cursor controls was to prevent anyone from stealing you code when they LISTed it, or even better, tagging your files! Lotsa CLEAR/HOME or DOWN statements... ah them's were the days.


There were 2 pre-announcment TM pages (2)

SeanNi (18947) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227944)

There were 2 different pre-announcement Transmeta pages. For about a month or so before the Jan 19th (?) launch, they had one with a couple of nice graphics and so on.

But for years before that one came out (early Dec 99), they had a very very simple page. It basically ran something along the lines of:

This page is not here yet.
<!-- There are no hidden messages in this webpage.-->
<!-- There are no tyops in this webpage.-->

The original poster seems to be a bit confused as to which was which. The second was -- as you can see -- definitely under 5k. The former (with the images) would have been a lot closer to that limit. I'm not sure which generated more discussion.

It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
- Sean

Re:Interestin (2)

Xenu (21845) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227945)

I agree.

I don't know anyone who has ADSL or a cable modem. They all use 28.8 or 56K modems with 14-17" monitors.

The old rule of thumb used to be a one second response time to user input. That is 3600 bytes at 28.8 kbps.

I feel like slapping the web designer every time I see another insanely bloated web page that takes a minute to load.

Re:Excess font tags - inquiry (2)

stab (26928) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227946)

First of all, you should investigate using Cascading Style Sheets instead of tag for modern browsers. They are one simple tag and also degenerate gracefully for older browsers (which ignore them).

E.g., if I remember right, you'd use

BODY: { font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif }

And that overrides the body tag with the font you picked.

There are lots of cross-browser problems with using these unfortunately, but check out some decent sites like WebReference [] for info on them.

Incidentally, you often have to use lots of font tags if you use tables. A font tag will apply to multiple paragraphs, but not to the cell contents inside tables! You need extra font tags in there for that.


Not that anyone cares, but (2)

DonkPunch (30957) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227949)

192R, 192G, 192B also matches the default grey in Windows.

In hex, it translates to C0C0C0. "#C0C0C0" if you're trying to set the color in HTML.

I only mention it because, at one point, I also had to figure it out. Of course, being a young-un, I just sampled it into one of them fancy newfangled graphics programs. Didn't have to walk 5 miles uphill to code on a 50-pound keyboard missing a few keycaps or any of that stuff. Yep, we sure have it easy these days. :)

Re:5120 Bytes?? Yikes (2)

Kyrrin (35570) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227950)

> 5k is not a lot of space to do anything useful in....for any amount of text,
> it usually comes out more than that.

That's my thought exactly. I'm pondering entering this contest, but they're judging on content as well (as well they should be!) and I'm having a hard time coming up with something that will still ring in at under 5K with text and images and still be interesting.

It's interesting that this happens to come along now. I spent a good half an hour last night trying (mostly) patiently to educate a cow-orker of mine as to just, precisely, /why/ one should design pages that would be viewable in any browser. He proposed something to go onto a page that we both work on, I vetoed it because it relied solely on color changes to convey content, thus excluding Lynx users. His response -- and it floored me -- was 'Well, who uses that old sort of stuff these days anyway?'

Uh. Me. And everyone else who, like me, is still stuck on a dialup POTS line, lucky to even get 28.8 with a 56K modem due to the quality of said POS phone lines, browsing on a six-year-old slow-as-shit computer, and who doesn't want to sit around and wait 30 minutes for /. to load.

I don't really know when this turned into a browser accessability rant. *grin* It's certainly possible to design a page in less than 5K that looks like shit in, say, lynx. It's also possible to design a page that looks beautiful in any browser you view it in, but happens to take six years to load. I think what my point is, is that this contest -- while pretty awesome, and definately something that I'm going to be pondering my entry for -- misses the point to some extent. It shouldn't /just/ be attacking bloat; it should also be attacking broswer-specific, non-standards-compliant HTML.

A sure winner (2)

chazR (41002) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227953)

This [] from the Gnu web site should be a candidate. You'd need to take a few links out to get it under the limit, but it shows what can be done in limited space.

Share and Enjoy.

5K... (2)

Cyn (50070) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227954)

I think the point of the contest is that if you were to view this from your home, you would *ONLY* download 5K - no more. So meta reloads, java scripts, etc. that pull from elsewhere, the content that is elsewhere would be considered part of your submission - hence you'd be over.

On a side note - the formula allows you to have up to 20K and still be in the positive, if it's a *REALLY* good page - but personally i won't be going over 5K.

Excess font tags - inquiry (2)

British (51765) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227955)

I do many of my web pages in just the Arial font. Looking at what NEtscape Composer and FrontPage 2000 do, they put font tags for EVERY line and paragraph/cell seperation,etc. Is this really needed?

If I just had a 1-font web page, wouldn't I only need one tag at the beginning and end? Looking at some of my other pages, they have font tags within font tags. Wonder how much I can slim down.

Small programs (2)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227957)

One of the first machines I ever programmed on was a 4k TRS-80.

The first machine I did substantial programming (an Apple ][+) had only about 16k for BASIC programs before you ran into the video buffer. I still remember hitting that limit and getting all sorts of gibberish (my code) as graphics on the screen.


FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227958)

Whomever you are, it's you and those like you who give me reason to browse at -1. Thank you.

Excellent Jon Katz parody (2)

spiralx (97066) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227961)

This is what the internet is all about: making people dizzy, so dizzy that they fall off of their high pedestals and fall into the muck of the real world, the real world portrayed by the internet, the internet that is a big revolutionary revolution that's revolving so quickly that people get dizzy. And the internet revoluiton, led by revolting geeks, is a geekfest among revolutions. That's what I meme.

Now that is fucking excellent. A truly marvellous parody of Jon Katz :)

Get hired! (2)

ahaning (108463) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227962)

This could be a really interesting scenerio(sp?). They could pick, say, the top 30 people and announce their names. Then, say some company is looking for a web designer. So, they say "hey, these people know what they are doing and can save us bandwidth money! hire 'em!" Imagine how wonderful the web would be if there weren't so much useless crap being sent around.

On a slightly related note (in that BBSs were really cool-looking despite the constraints) I wish BBSs would come back. Sometimes, the web just seems too big for me. I know they won't. (At least, not like they were when I was in to them (right before they all started to die ): ))

Welcome to Slashdot. Please do not feed the trolls.

Re:Tight coding contests in history (2)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227963)

Oh, I realise that. Fundamentally though, HTML is similar to BASIC in that it's an interpreted language (whether markup or programming), and thus your source code is your executable. (Note to the pedants: I know this isn't strictly true, but for byte-counting, it's a fair approximation)

And the idea is the same in both cases: Write tightly. Write elegantly. Write concisely. Do what you have to do with a minimum of fluff. It's a Good Thing.

don't use frontpage (2)

xDroid (115379) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227965)

use Word . . . 2k
no, use fp . . . 2k
no, use notepad . . . 1k

submission. . .
I win!!

Re:Done (2)

348 (124012) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227967)

Very well Done! Bravo Bravo!

+5 Funny!

Reminds me... (2)

Yaruar (125933) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227968)

Back in my youth there was a competition for the most inventive program to be written in one line on a BBC B.

From what I remember the winner was a Mandlebrot generator which stunned me totally.

No program could ever suppass the elegance of that line.

Re:I nominate... Transmeta (2)

Anomalous Canard (137695) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227969)

A month or two before the January annuncement, the Transmeta page switched to the Crusoe image with the real message about the January announcement in the HTML source.

Prior to that the page was the minimal one that the post above refers to. It too had HTML comments that said, in effect, there aren't any secrets in the comments either.

Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected

Re:5K - C'mon..... (2)

ZikZak (153813) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227971)

Because implicit in the contest is the idea that you are to create something visually appealing (ie: artistic). A well written recipe for a bundt cake ain't gonna cut it.

You shouldn't be using font tags anyway... (3)

MenTaLguY (5483) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227972)

CSS allows you to specify all of the font styles for the elements of the document in ONE place. Want your H1s to be in "BastardWeird"?

<STYLE TYPE="text/css">

H1 { font-family: BastardWeird; }
// -->

... this once, at the top of the file (the HTML comments are optional -- just there to prevent the CSS code from showing up in non-CSS browsers), instead of having:

<FONT FACE="BastardWeird">...&lt/FONT>

... around every single H1 in the document. That's a savings of about 39 bytes PER H1, after an initial cost of about 70 bytes. Maybe H1 is a bad example (it doesn't get used more than once or twice in a document usually), but this extends to other tags too, and not just to fonts. CSS also replaces FONT COLOR and a lot of other things that before needed to be coded multiple times into the same HTML document.

This is an even bigger win when you use a single, central css file (referenced via LINK REL=stylesheet), rather than coding CSS into every document. Maintainence also magically becomes easier. Want to change your whole site's look? Edit one file.

Use scripts (3)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227973)

Couldn't you just use a small bit of JavaScript to pull the whole page from somewhere else?

Alternatively, you could use PerlScript [] and write the whole page in obfuscated Perl.

Now all we need is a web browser in under 5Kbyte.

I had 120 digits of code on one 80 column card (3)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227974)

Friend and I had a contest on an IBM 1620 Mod I, who could get the fanciest program on one card. I overlapped instructions and data. 120 or so digits (decimal machine), self loading of course. It typed "THIMK" over and over again. The M was because that was the halt instuction; N was useless. One sense switch made it go faster, one made it stop.


Re:Small programs (3)

Pope (17780) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227975)

One of the best tricks on the VIC-20 and C-64 (and I assume any other CBM BASIC machine) was that to save memory when typing in your programs you could use the Tokenized equivalents. eg. for GOTO you typed "G shift-O" which resulted in one of the keyboard graphics shapes, but when LISTed transformed into GOTO.
You could save memory and more importantly keystrokes doing this! G shift-O took 2 bytes where GOTO takes 4, etc.
I had a blackjack program in BASIC that was around 3.5K. if you tried to modify it using straight BASIC commands, you got "Out Of Memory" errors, but if you used the Tokenized shorthand, you could debug and change the code.
Pretty cool!


Cunning Plan (3)

stab (26928) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227976)

Heh, why not try to use one of the HTML compression tools which have a short javascript header which unpacks html on the fly? Problem is finding a small enough bit of "header JS", but it might be a cool way to get around the 5k limit while sticking to it.

Look at this freshmeat entry for AlgART HTML Picker [] to see what I mean :)

Re:Tight coding contests in history (3)

phrawzty (94423) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227978)

My favourite bite-sized (haha) challenge would have to be the "chip tune" competitions. The idea was simple - create a ".mod" (.s3m, .it, etc..) song under 4k, including samples, pattern lists, etc..
Perhaps even more amazing, from a technical standpoint, were the 4k "demo" competitions. Apparently, these are still reasonably popular. The idea here is to create a graphically pleasing demo in 4k or less (go asm!).
The 64k limit was (is) a popular barrier for graphical demos too, with an absolutly incredible amount of power crammed into each and every byte.
For fun, check out the following URLs:

The Hornet Archive [] - While no longer "active", there are still a lot of resources available. Search for "64k" (while you still can!).
Future Crew's "Second Reality" [] - One of the definitive demos of all time.
Distance'99 [] - a recent competition covering many types of demos. Both amiga and PC 4k and 64k bundles of joy are available. :)

.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -

Content - formatting fluff = faster loading pages (4)

phoneboy (11009) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227979)

I remember how people used to write really small, really fast assembly code because, quite frankly, the hardware didn't allow for you to be wasteful. Memory and processing power was a precious resource. Programmers tried to squeeze every last ounce of memory and processing power out of a computer. And we *liked* it, damn it! ;-)

Obviously, in the days of cheap memory, processing power, and Microsoft, bloatware is the norm instead of the exception.

I pretty much stay away from just about every advancement that has taken place in HTML and it's bretheren since the IMG tag and tables. The reason: I want the most number of people to be able to make use of my web pages. Just by leaving out a lot of the advanced features, you can reduce the web page to little more than the actual text. Okay, it's not "pretty," but it loads really fast even over a modem connection (actual text compresses on modem connections).

I may have "big" pages but that's because they are heavy on actual content and light on fluff.

-- PhoneBoy

I nominate... (4)

jabber (13196) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227980)

The 'pre-announcement' (date 1/19/00) Transmeta site.

It attracted a HUGE amount of attention, and weighed in at what??? 100 bytes?

Just how big is "This page is not here yet." wrapped in the minimal obligatory HTML tags?

5120 Bytes?? Yikes (4)

Julius X (14690) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227981)

5k is not a lot of space to do anything useful in....for any amount of text, it usually comes out more than that. can be done. My home page weighs in at 3199 bytes, and that's with graphics! The only thing is, they propose that most web pages should be small, similar to this, but most useful pages that have more than two or three paragraphs on them will swell to 10 or 20k, and that's without using any kinds of graphics.

50k for a web page is great, and having alternate slimmed-down versions for new wireless and lo-bandwidth devices is a good thing, but not all web pages should be 10-20k. You'd never get any useful information(above all--you would NEVER get to read Slashdot--the lite page was 40+kb!).

But in any case, looks like a good thing to try, similar to the 4096kb democompos that I think they still have at the demo parties in Europe.

-Julius X

Flexing my brain (4)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227983)

'Bout time somebody did this. Be warned -- I plan on winning --not because I'll get picked as the best entry, but because it will give my design skills a challenge.

So if I don't get the $50 bucks, why do I consider this a win? Well, once a person catches on to some of the better techniques, it's relatively easy to write complex, data driven sites -- you develop a good site plan, work with folks until all of the pieces have been agreed on, test the functionality, then make it pretty.

Of course, if you work develop high end web sites like I used to, we're talking about billing $100K+ to the client for the whole process, at a bare minimum.

But it's not pushing my skills much any more -- I can do roughly the same things in Perl, PHP, Python, TCL, SSJS, etc., the same things and a few more fun by throwing in Java and Javascript. Flash is cool, but not web-wide, so it's not gonna pay my rent for a while yet.

But proving that 5K is enough to do something useful/pretty, etc. -- that's a challenge. See ya there!!

easy winner (4)

trotsky (96716) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227984)

Give the prize to: 404 File Not Found The requested URL (foobar.htm) is not found. Possibly the most popular web page in the world

Re:Done (4)

locutus074 (137331) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227985)

If you liked that, you ought to check out ApostropheColon [] .

Yet Another Slashdot Parody, but it's damn funny. You might not like it though; it does not contain grits.

Interestin (4)

summdood (157002) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227986)

Sounds like the demo scene of years ago. With the availability of higher bandwidth connections web designers have often have forgotten about the people with the 14" monitors and the slower modems. I personally (due to a move) have stepped back from a cable modem to a 56k connection and the multimedia rich enviorment is a beast and a burden because of it. I have actually had to change my surfing habits. I hope to be out of the land of the 'bandwidth impaired' very soon though. The outcome of the contest should prove to be interestig

Link to the actual contest (5)

Otto (17870) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227988)

Here's a link to the actual contest rules and so forth. []

Immediately disqualified.. (5)

BilldaCat (19181) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227989)

.. is any article by one Jon Katz. :)

server side--no, client side--maybe (5)

G27 Radio (78394) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227990)

from their FAQ:

How about client-side processing? Can I use JavaScript? What if the page shows up as larger than 5k in the browser as a result of the scripting?

Client-side scripting, including the use of scripts which write out additional HTML (i.e., by using JavaScript's "document.write()" function) are permitted. The size component of the judging will be done by examining the files which sit on the server, not the browser's rendering of those files. The normal caveats apply however (see the next question); make sure you are confident about your scripts running in the judges' browsers. Also, please note that gratuituous exploitation of this provision may cause low marks by some judges in the concept & originality category.

The server side question is answered elsewhere in the FAQ--clearly not allowed. What's interesting is that client side scripting could be used to generate much more than 5k worth of HTML, as long as the original page on the server is less than 5k. Of course, you'll want to read the entire FAQ for any caveats.

FAQ available at [] .


Tight coding contests in history (5)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 14 years ago | (#1227991)

Ah, this sort of thing takes me back.

I remember the days of Byte (when it was a real magazine), Compute!, et al. The magazines were full of code back then, pages and pages and pages of typing that you'd laboriously enter by hand, and then debug. A few of 'em had 1k programming contests monthly, which (along with typing in the loooong programs) really gave you an appreciation for style, efficiency, and elegance in coding. Atari Basic (this was on the 400/800 machines) also allowed you to enter more than one statement on a logical line (which was something like 107 or 112 characters), so they also had 'one liners' every month. They were usually cute little graphics demos, since easy graphics programming was Atari's forte'.

Now we're doing it in HTML instead of BASIC, and with a 5kB limit instead of 1kB. What goes around, comes around, eh?

Cool stuff.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account