×

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!

Running Tor On Your TV

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the blender-seems-the-obvious-choice dept.

Encryption 80

jaromil writes "TorTV is an early effort to embed Tor in household computing: run it on your TV at home. So far only WDTV installed with the homebrew WDLXTV firmware is supported. What other platforms do you think are viable for it?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

80 comments

yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38390830)

can they run it on my toaster next?

Re:yawn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391008)

Fat people eat too much. Stop arguing about this. If you burn 1700 calories a day and you eat 2500 calories a day you are eating too much. It's that simple. Time to put the fork down, you lard-asses.

I loved Shaun of the Dead. You know why? Because the fatties got ripped apart by the zombies first. That's how it should be because they are unfit.

Re:yawn (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391254)

the fatties got ripped apart by the zombies first

Same thing happened on Zombieland too

Re:yawn (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391446)

What the hell are you two talking about? Shaun's fit roommate got bit early in the movie, and the fat one made it to the end.

Re:yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392106)

I lied the part where the sheriff does a quick draw on the guy in center field.

Re:yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38398330)

I'd rather be a fatty in a tank than an unarmed and unprotected Olympian. :)

Re:yawn (0, Offtopic)

rpresser (610529) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391440)

Anonymous cowards post too much. Stop arguing about this. If you are too cowardly to use your name and you post 5 times a day you are posting too much. It's that simple. Time to cut your throat, asshole.

Re:yawn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391596)

Anonymous cowards post too much. Stop arguing about this. If you are too cowardly to use your name and you post 5 times a day you are posting too much. It's that simple. Time to cut your throat, asshole.

With that you have identified yourself as a fattie. A lard-ass. A gluttonous over-eater. A double-chinner who can't remember what his feet look like because he long ago couldn't see them anymore. It's no one's fault but your own, fattie. Try respecting yourself. Do that and suddenly you take better care of yourself. Or you can give a million reasons why your constant overeating is somehow somebody else's fault. Then you can be puzzled and amazed that you aren't losing weight. See the second you man up and take responsibility for your life is the moment you can change things about yourself. Such as your jiggly rolls of adipose fat.

That's what is really wrong with fatties. It's a mental disease. It's a "can't be my fault" delusion. It's a "no connection between the choices I make and the results I experience" delusion. It's an inability to cope with reality and reality says you're a fatass. Hating fatties is not superficial. It's ugly for a good reason. They don't get hassled about being lard-asses nearly enough.

Ah well. Nothing is funnier than fat rage. Whattya gonna do, sit on me? Oh wait, you could never catch me because I'm not a lard-ass. You couldn't go one round either because your flabby ass would be out of breath. Try losing your lard. Then you can make your pathetic little threats. If you don't get heart disease or diabetes first.

Re:yawn (1)

rpresser (610529) | more than 2 years ago | (#38405304)

Enjoying yourself, I hope. Like the asshole doctor who told me I needed to lose weight, as if I didn't already know that since before he was born, your comments have exactly zero impact on my future behavior. And I'm smiling ear to ear at the pleasant thought of your violent death next week.

Re:yawn (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391746)

Anonymous cowards post too much. Stop arguing about this. If you are too cowardly to use your name and you post 5 times a day you are posting too much. It's that simple. Time to cut your throat, asshole.

There are reasons other than cowardice for posting AC, you know.

Re:yawn (2)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38394426)

Yeah, but when you combine it with blatant trolling, it's a pretty good guess that you're not dealing with an oppressed political dissident or a whistle-blower, just a douchebag manifesting the GIFT.

Raspberry Pi ? (2)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391502)

I'm putting this under the "toaster" comment not only because of the traditional usage of "toaster" to refer to any small machine (there have been actual toasters running NetBSD for years...) but because you might alternatively want to put Raspberry PopTarts in your toaster, and I need to make it clear that you shouldn't put Raspberry Pi in your toaster, even if it is RoHS-compliant.

But a Raspberry Pi computer is designed to attach to your TV, works fine with TVs that don't already have web-toasters built in, is something you can take to random hotels with randomly-filtered ISP service, doesn't cost much, and should have enough horsepower to run Tor. It may not have enough storage for some of the classic applications for Tor-on-a-TV, such as downloading pirated movies, but maybe a USB disk drive can fix that.

Re:yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38393056)

Yes and a proper HTCPCP compliant coffee pot would be nice, too.

FIRST POST! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38390858)

FIRST POST

Re:FIRST POST! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38390906)

Maybe you would had got it if you didn't use Tor...

Re:FIRST POST! (0)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38390908)

Two minutes behind the first first post [slashdot.org].

That's what you get for using tor.

Re:FIRST POST! (1, Offtopic)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391016)

Just seconds behind the first person to use that joke. Maybe if you didn't use Tor...

Re:FIRST POST! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391298)

Or he wasted time cutting and pasting the link. You can have it partially done quickly or completely done more slowly!

Huh? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38390922)

OK, let's get the obvious question out of the way: Why would I want to run Tor on my TV? Honestly, I don't get why. I don't see anywhere on the site that explains why it would be a good thing for me to run my TV on the Tor network.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391012)

Well, there is the, "Because I can" factor. But it also could provide some interesting safety measures when using a built-in browser on some televisions. Yes, there are televisions with a web browser. Why? Because some people like the idea.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391164)

Even so, of all the computers in your house, this is the oddest choice for using as a router. Why not .. um .. your router?

Re:Huh? (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391228)

Even so, of all the computers in your house, this is the oddest choice for using as a router. Why not .. um .. your router?

To take some of the load off your other hardware maybe. Though the router is where a LOT of things would make more sense to run if you could - bittorrent for example. no needing to deal with one computer on your network trying to bury your router with connections.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391400)

No, my router routes. The closest thing to a service that it provides is NAT. I don't worry about it getting buried in connections because I bought a router (Cisco 881 at a surplus yard) that would stand up to the abuse I throw at it.

Re:Huh? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38397794)

Yes, there are televisions with a web browser. Why? Because some people like the idea.

I like the idea; I have a computer plugged into my TV. With that setup I have no use for cable at all; most of the channels are on Hulu, most of the networks stream their shows from their websites, and I don't actually have to be in front of the TV at 7:00 Thursday night to see BBT. All I have to do is log on to CBS's web site and get the latest stream. It's like having a DVR and not having to take the bother to set it up for recording.

Re:Huh? (2)

Al_Lapalme (698542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391114)

Some TV's come with Netflix and (as mentioned by another user) web browsers. A lot of content out there is limited to specific countries; for example most Canadian TV networks (comedy network, space, etc) have TV shows available for viewing but locked to Canadian IPs; likewise for American networks and American IPs. Netflix, Amazon, etc, all do the same. If you could choose an exit node in any given country, you'd effectively have a nice proxy for these geographically locked services.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391218)

have you ever used tor ? its slower than a hayes 14.4k modem over a crappy phone line. and thats for web browsing, not media.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391388)

Very true, unfortunately.

It's silly but before clicking through, I had hoped that this was a scheme for developing a relatively secure content distribution or streaming solution... boosting available resources for the network by getting lots of people on board with a "free tv and movies" lure. A bit like how Napster exploded when regular people started using it.

Then the chicken-and-egg reality set in... :(

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391618)

OK, let's get the obvious question out of the way: Why would I want to run Tor on my TV? Honestly, I don't get why. I don't see anywhere on the site that explains why it would be a good thing for me to run my TV on the Tor network.

There will come a day when you can't torrent or download TV shows anymore. So this will be nice.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391896)

So, that's the day that I stop watching Dancing with the Stars and begin interacting with living human beings for my entertainment?

Bring it on all the swifter.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392166)

why the hell would you download danceing with the stars?

Re:Huh? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38397108)

why the hell would you download danceing with the stars?

So you can not watch the whole series all at once.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392230)

Believe it or not, there is some good television left in the world. It's often highly scattered, though, and not all of it is legally available in any one country. Over the summer, for instance, I started watching "This Is Not My Life," a Prisoner-esque drama from New Zealand. The show never aired in my country, nor are DVD's or legal downloads available anywhere, so I pirated it. Not everything is Dancing With the Stars, and some of what's not isn't available except by piracy. Tor can help keep you safe while you're pirating. The downside, of course, is that you'll die of old age long before your download finishes.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392186)

Look, Smithers! Gabbo is coming!

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392812)

So that nobody can tell that you're browsing child porn in your living room, of course.

Re:Huh? (1)

jaromil (104349) | more than 2 years ago | (#38395356)

If you visit Asia you might notice it: the only electrical household that everyone has is a TV, even in absence of any other basic furniture.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38396942)

Kiddie porn?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38416688)

You get good karma! The phrase "contribute to strengthen the Tor network" mean anything to you? The idea is that you share spare CPU cycles from your media player, and a tiny stream of electric power you can afford, and offer another node in the whole Tor network, running on your media player instead of your laptop or PC. You may not get any immediate benefit, and it surely doesn't change your TV viewing choices. Besides you're not supposed to be peeking at the stream of Tor traffic anyway. However, the whole community benefits if we all share together. Of course, your freedom to do so may vary based upon your own political viewpoints about privacy and state control of the media.

What if Tor became Netflix for sharing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38390972)

Wouldn't that be a treat.

None (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38390986)

What other platforms do you think are viable for it?"

None?

In teddy bears (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38390992)

Since pedos use tor it should be the obvious choice.

Boxee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391060)

http://www.boxee.tv/

Speaking of WDTV... (3, Interesting)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391214)

I just grabbed the newest version, the WDTV Live Streaming Server "Gen 3", which is essentially the "Hub" product without the internal hard drive.

Will WDXLTV be available for this model ever? If so, do I really care? It plays *everything* I throw at it...so what else does XL do, other than being a torrent/usenet client?

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391358)

Probably any recent LG tv they all pretty much run busybox...

If I had a compiler for it (probably an arm variant) and a toolchain for it (think its up on the LG site). I could put just about *any* program on the tv as long as there is enough memory. But I dont. As I have a computer for that sort of thing. Which is *way* more capable for the task at hand.

I used to run with a 386-16 up clocked to a 386-25. I dont have it anymore because I have a computer that is *WAY* more capable.

These sorts of articles are somewhat silly 'general purposes computer runs random XYZ software'. Its almost a 'yeah and....'

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391500)

All Xerox copiers and printers run Linux on PowerPC CPUs with custom chips for image processing. The color GUIs run on X servers with the UI written in Java and accessible remotely using VNC. The help videos for paper jams etc. are encoded using Ogg Theora. Can anyone else divulge any geeky details about the architecture of any other consumer electronics? This should be fun!

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391738)

I presume you mean all Xerox copier and printers produced in the last year? Many of the Xerox products I've used predate Linux, let alone VNC and Ogg. Of course, they also predate LCD screens with informational videos....

I do think it's nifty that Xerox was able to produce something using some of its own tech though... who knew VNC would be useful for anything beyond the XEROX Parc mobile desktop?

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38400098)

> *way* more capable .... *WAY* more capable.

The word for which you are searching is "much". Much more capable.

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (1)

iamwahoo2 (594922) | more than 2 years ago | (#38392600)

I think torrent/usenet is probably the big thing. I think there was one hack that allowed you to send remote control commands to the device via the network, which would be cool if you wanted to control the device through a smart phone or tablet device.

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38394826)

That was the idea behind DLNA, but during design the tech grew so complicated (In large part due to every company involved demanding their own patented technology be made a requirement) that it became impossible to get it to work.

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (1)

dobster (989215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38395428)

... can connect my 6 2TB drives (and more) ... can keep track of what I watched (MediaMark) ... superior MediaNavigator ... and a zilion other things. Oh, and it is LX and not XL

Re:Speaking of WDTV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38406888)

I have a Live Plus. WDLXTV has a web-controlled back end, and through the add-ons manager on version .5 you can add a web-controlled rutorrent server, auto-downloader (sails through captchas on upload sites), DLNA-compliant servers, a host of UMSP channels, and the ability to customize your own feeds as well. Well worth the time and a breeze to install IMHO.

What the hell happened to tv? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391600)

Whatever happened to a tv just being a tv? And even if we could, why the fuck would anyone want to do this? Streaming? Come on, you saps! You're letting big business turn our world into the vision of George Orwell. 1984 anyone? Just rememberThey're Watching You!

Use Tor to watch TV instead. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391728)

Its much better to use Tor to watch British TV here is how to do it http://www.caledoniacomputers.com/?p=1880 and its free for Linux users.

TOR is fast enough for streaming videos from yt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38391960)

I am located in germany and I stream videos blocked by GEMA over US exit nodes I picked by their bandwidth.

It works great. Also with HD videos.

Also: SOPA will make ICANN useless and international alternatives will prosper. SOPA will make TOR prosper.

SOPA is the kind of escalation that will have consequences the proponents of that bill do not understand... yet.

Re:TOR is fast enough for streaming videos from yt (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38397726)

SOPA is the kind of escalation that will have consequences the proponents of that bill do not understand... yet.

Unless those consequences include selective assassination of those proponents and their families, wholesale destruction of their property and massive extermination of the personnel working for them, they do not care. They simply have to bribe the lawmakers into making anything not beyond a paywalled garden illegal, and they will have their cake (paid by us) and eat it too.

I don't know... (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38391992)

As a result of inexperienced police departments, running a TOR exit node can have some serious consequences.
So the idea of ubiquitous TOR is great, but in practice I'm be leary of endorsing having TOR enabled [everything].
For now, it should remain the domain of experienced users who are running TOR with their eyes open.

You can say it's a chicken or egg kind of situation, but I don't want my family to be one of the eggs that gets broken because of the content coming out of their TOR exit node.

Re:I don't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392570)

Using Tor or being an intermediate relay poses no such risk.

Re:I don't know... (1)

jc79 (1683494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38395866)

Using Tor or being an intermediate relay poses no such risk.

Correct. Running an exit node is for the brave or those who live in countries with sensible laws. The rest of us can contribute by running relay nodes, and not allowing exit traffic.

What's All This About, Then? (3, Insightful)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38392222)

Is the goal to flood the Tor network with so much traffic that the feds might not be able to catch your bittorrent downloads?

Re:What's All This About, Then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392488)

Bittorrent is the least of my worries...

Re:What's All This About, Then? (1)

jc79 (1683494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38395894)

Running BitTorrent over Tor is stupid:

1. Malicious exit nodes can correlate your BT streams to your Tor web browsing, and learn your real IP.
2. The high bandwidth used by BT cripples the Tor network for everyone else
3. Most popular BT clients send the tracker your IP anyway.

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/bittorrent-over-tor-isnt-good-idea [torproject.org]

If you want anonymous P2P, then I2P is a much better option.

Re:What's All This About, Then? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38396250)

1. Malicious exit nodes can correlate your BT streams to your Tor web browsing, and learn your real IP.

How exactly can they do this? Why would your web browsing have any correlation to your BT streams?

3. Most popular BT clients send the tracker your IP anyway.

This is definitely a risk. It is probably best mitigated by ensuring that the client doesn't know your IP (NAT, no route to internet, etc).

If you want anonymous P2P, then I2P is a much better option.

Assuming you don't want to actually download anything. What is actually available on I2P? How does its library compare with any of the trackers on the internet at large? The reason people use tor isn't because it is more secure, but because it lets you browse the internet that you already use.

Sure, it does create more traffic on the network, but most of its other problems are really not much different than the sorts of problems people can run into using a browser with tor.

Re:What's All This About, Then? (2)

jc79 (1683494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38396630)

1. Malicious exit nodes can correlate your BT streams to your Tor web browsing, and learn your real IP.

How exactly can they do this? Why would your web browsing have any correlation to your BT streams?

Sorry, should have been more clear. Because Tor conserves circuits for reasons of efficiency, it is possible for an exit node to build a profile of the activity of a circuit by inspecting the data leaving that circuit. If you are browsing via Tor while running a BT session, the data from the two sessions can be sent over the same circuit. The exit node can learn your IP from the BT stream (BT client tells tracker what unique random port it's listening on, exit node sees connection to tracker at unique port number, faulty BT client sends IP to tracker) and correlate that to the web traffic on the same circuit. They now know what you're browsing, and what your IP is. Anonymity broken. It's explained in the post I linked to.

Like you say, if your BT client doesn't know its real IP (NAT etc), then you're OK. It's a question of all the lemons lining up.

Assuming you don't want to actually download anything. What is actually available on I2P? How does its library compare with any of the trackers on the internet at large? The reason people use tor isn't because it is more secure, but because it lets you browse the internet that you already use.

Chicken and egg problem. If more people used I2P for their filesharing, then there would be more files available over I2P. A few benevolent individuals are seeding more and more. But yes, I understand that people prefer to proxy their normal things over Tor rather than switch entirely to new networks. It's just a shame that in doing so they hurt the Tor network.

There was a suggestion a while ago that someone ought to make a bitTORrent client which ran a Tor relay on every BT peer. This would solve the bandwidth problem. Don't know if any work was ever done on it.

Re:What's All This About, Then? (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38398536)

Tor is horrible for any type of file sharing, and likely to just fail for lack of connections. Most outbound nodes have defaults to only support a few protocols on. HTTP(S) is the most popular supported. File sharing and email being the least supported of all, for obvious reasons.

DD-WRT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38392312)

There was some early work on integrating TOR into DD-WRT, but it didn't get very far. Though its still possible, that hack is brutal. I first looked into this when one of my sports subscriptions for streaming games blocks local teams through the use of GeoIP. I simply wanted to hide my ip to appear coming from some other location. As it turns out, TOR is not at all effective for streaming media anyway and doesn't appear to handle flash video at all.

http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6629

Dumb Idea (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38392548)

None. It's a bad idea and will get nowhere. There are already enough solutions to watch world-wide TV. If Tor is the answer to watch 'home movies' then I for one wouldn't support it.

Now you can stream CP... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38393296)

With tor on WDTV, you can stream CP as Tor is pretty much used for this... prove me otherwise slashdot...

Re:Now you can stream CP... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38394468)

Start with the fact that you can't even use Tor to stream ZP [escapistmagazine.com], much less CP...

Troll.

Re:Now you can stream CP... (1)

jc79 (1683494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38395926)

Ha! Like any hidden service has enough bandwidth to stream anything.

Tor is used by many people who want anonymity. The fact that CP enthusiasts and other criminals use it is testament to the robustness of the anonymity it provides.

Intended Use... (1)

GoldAnt (899329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38395214)

Tor is intended to be a tool for freedom around the world... blasting this crap through it needlessly is a substantial abuse.

I'm sure global freedom hinges on you streaming your torrents directly to your TV...

Too much ubiquity a bad thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38395620)

Making Tor easy to set up and use has been an understandable goal of Tor folk. Getting it on TVs is perhaps an extension of that goal. I can see potential problems with this mainstreaming strategy though:

(1) The number of client users has increased dramatically but is the number of nodes increasing to match? If not, the network will choke to a halt eventually (not just because of TV use of course).

(2) Our freedom-fearing faux democratic governments have tolerated Tor (and some of its scarier or subversive uses) while it was relatively obscure, a minority interest, slow as treacle, and "techy" - difficult for Joe Dumbass to get his head around. But it's got easier, faster and more popular. Never assume they couldn't find a way to make all tor usage illegal. I'm surprised it's taken this long. And don't cite the US Constitution (for eg) at me, that won't be a barrier when they really don't want it in the road. Even if they can't, they can try to establish enough malicious nodes and exploits to try to bust the bad traffic. But once the network is proven compromised for that, it proven compromised for everything.

Windows Media Center? (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 2 years ago | (#38401784)

I'm running MCE 2005 on my TV with two analog tuners (useless since September 2011 in Canada).
It runs MAME and other emulators, and I can run about anything I want on that thing (the limiting factors are its CPU, an old 3000+ Athlon and its video card, an old 6600 non-gt silent)

2GB ram, 3 1TB drives + a 120GB for system

Check for New 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...