Beta
×

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!

Comments

top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

FireFury03 Re:math err? Re:Beyond what humans can do (512 comments)

Oh yeah, I'll also point out that the original poster's numbers stuck out like a sore thumb before I even looked up the figures: Petrol is lighter than water, so its immediately obvious that 4.75 tons is going to be over 4750 litres (at current forecourt prices, about £6000) and I know I don't buy anywhere close to that amount of petrol each year. Doncha just love the metric system for making such things so obvious. :)

3 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

FireFury03 Re:math err? Re:Beyond what humans can do (512 comments)

The numerator above seems off: what is 6445 ?

4.75 tons of petrol is 6445 litres. Since petrol is 85% carbon, we can divide the 6445 litres by 0.85 and we get 7582 litres of petrol containing 4.75 tons of carbon.

For the weight of a big tub of petroleum containing 4.75t carbon, I think you'd have:
4.75 tons of carbon / .85 = 5.938 tons of petroleum.

Your answer is wrong: 4750 Kg of carbon / 0.85 = 5588 Kg of petrol. It looks like you divided by 0.80 instead of 0.85?

5588 Kg of petrol / 0.737 = 7582 litres of petrol.

3 days ago
top

Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

FireFury03 Re:Sigh (333 comments)

Secondly why would anybody pay for broadband internet, and only use it like ISDN or DSL?

Ok, I have a home connection that does 40Mbps down and 20Mbps up. It is capped to 100GB/month during the day (no cap at night, and this is when I run off-site backups and such). I never come close to exceeding that cap - the speed is useful for downloading the odd film, watching streaming HDTV, uploading photos, etc. for short periods. If I need to download a new Linux distro or something, I can do it in 10 minutes - doing this stuff over ISDN would be either very painful (requiring planning a download a long time in advance of actually needing it) or just plain impossible impossible. ADSL, again, would be rather a pain for the occasional large download.

On the other hand, if I were running bittorrent 24/7 I would be able to blow through 15TB of bandwidth in a month, were it not for the cap. But I'm not interested in doing this, so I don't understand why those people who are interested in shifting 2-3 orders of magnitude more data than me should expect me to pay more in order to subsidise the build-out cost of the ISP upgrading their network to support them.

The bittorrent crowd would characterise my 100GB monthly cap as terrible because, at full speed, I could blow through it in 5 hours. The thing that they completely fail to understand is that I never have any interest in blowing through it - I like a fast connection because it lets me do things quickly, not because I can download lots.

3 days ago
top

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

FireFury03 Re:Beyond what humans can do (512 comments)

single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year

That sounds an unreasonably high figure.

Petrol weighs about 737g / l, so 4750Kg of petrol is 6445 litres.
Wikipedia says the carbon content of petrol is up to about 85%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
So 6445/0.85 = 7582 litres of petrol contain 4.75t of carbon.
Wikipedia suggests average fuel economy is somewhere around 5l / 100Km: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
7582*100/5 = 151640Km - I'm pretty sure that the average car doesn't travel 152Mm/year!

Lets assume you're talking about tons of CO2 rather than tons of carbon.
Apparently we multiply litres of petrol by 2.331 to get Kg of CO2 emitted: http://www.carbontrust.com/res...
So 4750/2.331 = 2038 litres. At 5l / 100Km, this gives us 2038*100/5 = 40760Km - ok, a vaguely more reasonable figure.

Apparently the average company car does around 30,000Km/year and the average private car does about 12,000Km: http://www.racfoundation.org/m...

So the average is going to be well under 41Mm and around an order of magnitude less than the 152Mm you claimed!

I'm certainly not saying that climate change is nothing to worry about - I think it's a big problem and whether or not you think it's man made, dumping vast amounts of crap into the atmosphere can't possibly be a bright idea. But I really wish people wouldn't just invent bogus "facts" to back up their arguments - the arguments should stand up for themselves, if you need bogus data to prop them up then you've got something really badly wrong somewhere.

3 days ago
top

Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

FireFury03 Re:Sigh (333 comments)

They do seem to be rather twisting words to appear not to be imposing limits.

However, my question is: why are data caps such a bad thing? Most slashdotters seem to think that ISPs can provide truly unlimited bandwidth for zero cost, and given that most slashdotters are pretty technical I don't see how they can consider this to be a rational view. If large numbers of customers try to use large amounts of bandwidth at the same time, the only way an ISP can maintain a reasonable service is by upgrading their infrastructure. Sure, there's a lot of dark fibre already laid, but the hardware to put it into use is not free, nor is the engineer time required to install and maintain that hardware, nor is the power that the hardware draws.

So, whilst I acknowledge that a lot of slashdotters seem to think it is their god given right to max out their internet connection torrenting "moviez" 24/7, I have to question why the majority of internet users (who don't do this) should be expected to subsidise the minority who do? Why is it not better, for everyone except that minority, to cap connections somewhere above what the majority of people use, and then charge people extra if they want to download a disproportionately larger amount?

FWIW, here in the UK most of the ISPs provide a wide selection of packages with different (well publicised) caps and associated prices - those people who don't use their internet connection much get a cheap package, those who have a mid-range requirement get a mid-range package, and those who want to max out their connection the whole time either pay for an expensive package or go to one of the ISPs that offer "unlimited" connections (with the expected dire performance you'd expect from an ISP who is exclusively attracting the high bandwidth users). I really don't understand the American attitude, which on one hand is "I don't want to subsidise anyone else" (for healthcare, etc.) but at the same time "I expect to be subsidised by everyone else" (for high bandwidth internet use).

What I do object to, is ISPs using the term "unlimited" to describe packages which are clearly limited. And the terrible thing is that the regulator here has said that this practice is ok. Luckily only the crap, large ISPs seem to participate in that kind of misleading marketing, with the smaller, better performing ISPs preferring to clearly label what you're getting for your money.

3 days ago
top

HP Recalls 6 Million Power Cables Over Fire Hazard

FireFury03 Re:What's up with HP URLs? (135 comments)

I've been noticing this for several years now ... what the hell is up with URLs at HP?

It's like they've designed their website so nobody could ever actually find anything.

I mean "http://h30434.www3.hp.com/" is one of the most strangely formed URLs I've seen, what is it, the virtual host or something?

I was under the impression that most commercial websites were intentionally designed so no one could actually find anything... At least, that's the only explanation I can find...

3 days ago
top

HP Recalls 6 Million Power Cables Over Fire Hazard

FireFury03 Re:Interesting... (135 comments)

It's not just HP that uses the LS-15 style, Acer does too for their laptops. Incoming recall for 4-6 years worth of cables coming from Acer tomorrow then?

Don't hold your breath - my experience of Acer is that they don't give a damn about their customers once they've got their money

3 days ago
top

HP Recalls 6 Million Power Cables Over Fire Hazard

FireFury03 Re:Not the PSUs? The actual cables? (135 comments)

No surprise there, Apple had a recall because the strain relief on the first generation magsafe plugs was insufficient.

Oddly, the first generation magsafe plug on my wife's old Macbook (which I've now inherited) is fine after around 4-5 years of use. Conversely the new style one (~2 years old) has already broken due to insufficient strain relief on the computer-end (I chopped open the cable, resoldered it and wrapped the whole thing in amaglam tape... no telling how long it'll last though).

3 days ago
top

NRC Analyst Calls To Close Diablo Canyon, CA's Last Remaining Nuclear Plant

FireFury03 Re:In other news... (216 comments)

It may surprise you, but some people buy homes to live in them. Not to flip in 3 years for a profit.

Yep, so do I. I've been in my current home for 6 years. I was in my previous home for 7 years (then I relocated by a few hundred miles). A quick Google shows solar power companies around here quoting break even points of 8-12 years (and its only that low because of the artificially high feed in tariff, which has a very questionable future). So whilst I don't "flip in 3 years for a profit", I have never actually reached the break-even point in either my current home or my previous one. I don't know what I'll be doing in 6 years - I may still be here, or I may have decided that my family needs a bigger house and moved, and 6 years ago I certainly couldn't have predicted how my life currently is.

And I don't believe there's enough data in various markets to know whether or not solar panels would increase the value of a house more than their installation price (which is coming down, by the way).

Ok, I've not done any research into this, but IMHO around here house prices are so high that people are already really stretching their budget to buy a house. If they see two identical houses, one with freshly installed PV cells and the other without, I really can't see them laying down anywhere close to the installation cost of those panels extra to get that house. Yes it might save on the energy bills, but most of those savings are going to be used up paying off the extra large mortgage. Remember, that "8-12 year" ROI doesn't take into account the interest you're going to be charged on any loan you got to cover the cost.

4 days ago
top

NRC Analyst Calls To Close Diablo Canyon, CA's Last Remaining Nuclear Plant

FireFury03 Re:In other news... (216 comments)

Once they're installed, solar panels don't send you a bill every month.

The problem with solar is that it requires an upfront investment that pays back over a long term but does not significantly increase the value of your home. This means its only worth installing the panels if you can guarantee staying in your current property for a considerable length of time. Sure, some people can make that commitment (notably the older generation) but a lot of people can't.

i.e. if I spend £20K on PV panels and then sell the house, no one is going to pay £20K more for it just because it has PV panels on the roof.

4 days ago
top

Aussie Airlines To Allow Uninterrupted Mobile Use During Flights

FireFury03 Re:In The States (51 comments)

Alaska Airlines (and possibly others) now have USB and 110v outlets on the back of the seat in front of you. No more needing to rush to find outlets in layover airports!

A KLM flight I took from Schipol to Calgary earlier in the year had USB ports on all the seat-backs.

Just a shame the in-flight entertainment system was so damned unreliable - both the flight there and the return saw my screen crash, and the air crew said they couldn't do anything about it without resetting all the screens on the plane.

5 days ago
top

Aussie Airlines To Allow Uninterrupted Mobile Use During Flights

FireFury03 Re:article summary is wrong (51 comments)

Airlines like passengers to be paying attention during takeoff/landing since, in an emergency, the crew might need to give instructions and don't want to have to go down the plane telling everyone to remove headphones, etc.

5 days ago
top

Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

FireFury03 Re:$230 (609 comments)

so the channels have to choose between "annoying" and "none".

Thats not correct. They can choose between interstitial ads (in the middle of the stream), which Trump does for instance, non-skippable ads, banner ads which can be closed, and ads at the start of random videos.

Each channel has different settings on these.

Yep, and all of those are *right in the video* which makes them annoying. Stick them outside of the content, like traditional Google text ads usually are and that would qualify as "not annoying".

about a week ago
top

Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

FireFury03 Re:*sigh* (116 comments)

Personally, if I'm working on my own time on open source then I don't care if someone does not give back or not. It is not my role to enforce altruism or a sense of community. I'm just going to share the code.

And as the copyright holder, thats your right, just as its the copyright holder's right to impose pretty much any licence they choose on their code.

For small projects I'd do the same too, but for big projects (where there is a whole community using them), it seems fair for people who are profitting from them to give back to the community. I'm not demanding that they spend countless development hours improving software purely for the community, but I do think that if they are making those improvements *anyway* then the community should get to benefit.

What I don't get is the (quite common) perception that GPLed code is somehow worse than commercially licenced code - in both cases you have to adhere to the licence conditions and if you don't you get sued. Sure, people "accidentally" include random code they found on the web in commercial projects without bothering to check the licence, and when they are discovered they might have to pay damages and they certainly have to either stop using that code or start complying with the licence - they would have similar problems whether they ripped off GPLed code, or some proprietary stuff from Microsoft (for example). In fact, they're probably better off with GPLed code because at least they then get a "release all the source and you can carry on" option, which the likes of MS wouldn't give them.

about a week ago
top

Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

FireFury03 Re:$230 (609 comments)

Its not the big bad ISPs who generally do the ads (though they do sometimes participate on the side with DNS shenanigans). Its the people making the content you like.

Got a youtube channel you like with annoying ads? Dont blame the nasty corporations, blame the channel operator who chose what types of ads you received.

From what I can tell, youtube doesn't seem to do non-annoying ads, so the channels have to choose between "annoying" and "none".

TBH I find the youtube ads so intrusive that I do block them. I don't feel particularly bad about this because I figure that if the channels are particularly hurting from the blockers they can go shift their channel to another website that has more sensible advertising policies.

(Really - I wouldn't mind seeing the youtube preroll ads if I was watching an hour video, but when I'm watching 20 separate 3 minute videos, seeing *the same* 30 second preroll ad every 3 minutes starts to grate a bit)

about two weeks ago
top

Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

FireFury03 Re:$230 (609 comments)

...OK...where do I sign up?

Well yes, I'd probably sign up too. However, I imagine this would work more like cable/satellite:

1. Look at all this great stuff you can get *with no ads*! All you have to do is pay a subscription fee!
2. I've got a great idea! We could make stacks of money if we put advertising on the subscription channels as well as charging a subscription fee!

about two weeks ago
top

Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

FireFury03 Re:*sigh* (116 comments)

Without copyright, the end users would be in a much worse position since manufacturers could use any freely released code in any way they see fit with no obligation to their end users at all.

The part that none of you are getting is that said manufacturers have no exclusive rights over what they put out. So anybody could just as easily take that and incorporate it into whatever they are making. The problem is solved.

No, the problem is certainly not solved - whilst the manufacturers have no exclusive rights over what they release, the point is that they aren't going to be releasing the source code. So sure, you can rip off the binary firmware from one device and put it on another(*), but if you want to modify the code you're going to be SOL unless you feel like hacking on raw binary blobs for the rest of your life. The point of GPL is that it gives the end users the right to use the things that they own in the way they see fit - it allows you to make some modifications to the firmware on your phone, recompile it and install your modified firmware, for example. Without copyright law it would be extremely hard to do this since you would have no access to the source code - although you would be able to "do what you like" with the binaries, it would be exactly that - an opaque binary blob that for practical purposes you can't really do much with at all.

(*) In reality, without any kind of copyright legislation, you would probably see encrypted firmwares - whilst legally you would be able to copy them, the copy wouldn't do you any good because you wouldn't be able to decrypt it.

Really, abolishing copyright would make things a lot worse for the Open Source scene...

about two weeks ago
top

Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

FireFury03 Re:*sigh* (116 comments)

There are sometimes legal requirements to keep the end product unmodified by the end user. Ie, most medical devices in the US must be vetted by the FDA and once released are not allowed to be modified at will by the doctors who buy them, except for customization of course. Similarly some devices that operate under FCC rules may be required to prevent invalid configurations. There are markets where security is an extremely high priority for the customers and signing the software with secured certificates is necessary to even be in the market.

Sure, but these cases are the exception rather than the norm.

And of course there are all the commercial embedded developers in the middle. They want to use open source but also can not just release their entire source code to the world or allow modifications, because their legal department says no, the executives say no, the board says no, and there are a lot of competitors just waiting to pounce. BSD license is great there because BSD license wants software to be shared, whereas GPL often treats those devs as misguided.

As a software developer myself, I release code under the GPL because I am of the opinion that if someone wants to make use of my code at no cost, then they should contribute their improvements back to the project. Now I know that, strictly speaking, the GPL doesn't require them to make code available to the project, only to their customers; but in practice people don't tend to restrict the source to only their customers so the effect is the same.

I don't consider developers to be misguided if they want to prevent their competetors seeing the code, but in that case I'm not willing to give them a "freebee" - they are welcome to develop the whole thing themselves instead of using my code, or in some cases they are welcome to pay me, but I don't see why they should build a business upon my work at no cost to themselves without giving anything back.

I am, however, of the opinion that (except where the law demands unmodifyable code), end-users should be allowed to use their own devices how they see fit, so keeping code closed simply to stop the end-users doing this does indeed seem pretty misguided to me.

(For the record, my business uses Free software (some third party, some developed in-house) whilst also keeping some in-house code proprietary to prevent competetors from ripping it off. However, modifications we make to Free components are made available to the world, and usually explicitly committed back to the upstream project. And we do spend a considerable amount of our development resources enhancing/bugfixing the many third party Free components that we make use of, so I certainly don't see us as freeloading.)

about two weeks ago
top

Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

FireFury03 Re:What about OSS license that respects other righ (116 comments)

Both of those clauses would be incompatible with the definition of open source, especially regarding no discrimination against fields of endeavor. You're of course free to create and use such license, but keep in mind that it won't be considered open source and that a lot of people won't be able to use it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

about two weeks ago
top

Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3

FireFury03 Re:*sigh* (116 comments)

Copyleft is just a hack to route around copyright damage. Absent governments enforcing it, we'd all just either release code or not release code and the licensing friction would all go away.

GPL does far more than "route around copyright damage" - its aims are to give the _end user_ freedom, freedom which often wouldn't exist even without copyright.

Lets look at how things work with GPL'd code:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it under the GPL.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B gives C the source, since the GPL says they have to
5. C is happy since he can now modify the code.

(Ok, so it isn't alays plain sailing - B often has to be threatened before they will comply with the GPL; in the case of GPLv2 code, B's product may be Tivoised; frequently devices have a mix of GPL/proprietary code and its extremely difficult to integrate modifications into a device with only the GPL code, etc. but in theory at least this is how it should work).

Ok, so lets look at how this would work if there was no copyright law:

1. Developer A writes some code, releases it.
2. Company B takes A's code, modifies it a bit, maybe integrates it into a product (mobile phone, TV, whatever), puts the finished product (i.e. including the binaries) up for sale.
3. End user C buys B's product, wants to modify it, so asks B for the source.
4. B tells C to piss off because the source is a trade secret and B is under no obligation to release it.
5. C cries.

The GPL relies on copyright law to reach its goals of giving the end users the freedom to do as they wish with their own devices. Without copyright, the end users would be in a much worse position since manufacturers could use any freely released code in any way they see fit with no obligation to their end users at all.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

top

New rules for government departments' compliance with open standards

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  about 2 years ago

FireFury03 writes "Effective immediately, all British government departments are to comply with a set of Open Standards Principles (OSPs) when procuring for IT contracts. This follows a public consultation in which around 70% of respondents said they believed it would improve innovation, choice and value for money. Government sources say that although some suppliers have expressed reluctance to move towards OSPs, very few were able to articulate why they wouldn’t be beneficial.

Hopefully this will lead to fewer monolithic multi-million pound IT contracts going to the same old big businesses time after time, and more opportunity for small businesses to participate. Carving up a project and handing it to small businesses is likely very beneficial — less risk since the risk is spread amongst many suppliers, cheaper since there is more competition so less chance to overcharge like the big contractors currently do, and supporting small local businesses also helps the economy."

Link to Original Source
top

Illegal downloaders 'face UK ban'

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 6 years ago

FireFury03 writes "The BBC is reporting that the UK government may be planning to force ISPs to ban customers who are using their internet connections to infringe copyright. Apparently about 10% of the UK population regularly infringe copyright over the internet and there is no comment on how the ISPs are expected to detect infringement."
top

Active glacier found on Mars

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 6 years ago

FireFury03 writes "The European Space Agency's Mars Express spacecraft has spotted an icy feature which appears to be a young active glacier. Dr Gerhard Neukum (what a cool name :), chief scientist on the spacecraft's High Resolution Stereo Camera said "We have not yet been able to see the spectral signature of water. But we will fly over it in the coming months and take measurements. On the glacial ridges we can see white tips, which can only be freshly exposed ice". Estimates place the glacier at 10,000 — 100,000 years old."
Link to Original Source
top

Another warning over IPv4 address exhaustion

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 6 years ago

FireFury03 writes "The BBC is running a story on the IPv4 address exhaustion problem. The chairman of ICANN is warning that IPv4 addresses will probably run out in 2-3 years and we really need to roll out IPv6 now. The article notes that he is also Google's chief internet evangelist (Google still don't publish an IPv6 address for their search engine).

We keep getting these warnings, but very few ISPs and domestic router manufacturers seem to act (is it even possible to get a domestic ADSL router that does IPv6 without putting custom firmare on it yet?) Will we see a large scale roll-out of IPv6 soon, or will the industry wait until the sky falls in before acting?"

Link to Original Source
top

Google Sky launches

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  about 7 years ago

FireFury03 writes "The BBC is reporting that Google have launched the Google Sky add-on for Google Earth. It will allow astronomers a chance to glide through images of more than one million stars and 200 million galaxies.

"Click a button and the world flips round and you see the sky from that particular location," explained Mr Parsons. "[The view] would be the constellations that you would see oriented in the sky on that particular day at that particular time." Users can overlay the night sky with other information such as galaxies, constellations and detailed images from the Hubble Space Telescope.
Although so far I've been unable to find any information published by Google."

Link to Original Source
top

UK petition for government IT projects to be open

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 7 years ago

FireFury03 writes "There is a Petition on the UK government's website calling for publicly funded IT projects to be implemented as Free software. From the petition: "This would allow for more of the public to benefit from the development of the software since the code would be available for anyone to use and improve. Furthermore, compatibility with other Free licences (such as the GPL) would promote rapid development and reduced costs through the reuse of existing code.""
Link to Original Source
top

OSC threatten BBC over Microsoft tie-in

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 7 years ago

FireFury03 writes "After the BBC Trust approved the BBC's development of a Windows-only video-on-demand service in April, the Open Source Consortium is threatening the BBC with a complaint to the European Commission, since it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage and is not in the public interest. They have also complained to the regulator (Ofcom) and the BBC Trust comparing the situation to the BBC only making programmes that can only be watched on one particular brand of television.

As a licence fee payer, I feel that I should have the right to withhold a portion of my licence fee since the BBC obviously feels it appropriate to artificially restrict the content and therefore prevent a proportion of licence fee payers from legitimately accessing it. It is also interesting to note from the article that the BBC seems to consider supporting only Windows and Mac to be "platform agnostic", with no mention of other operating systems."

Link to Original Source
top

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 7 years ago

FireFury03 writes "There is a petition on the British government's website calling for software projects funded by the tax payer to be released under a Free licence so that the tax payer can re-use the code they paid for and also examine the progress of the project. All to often these projects seem to over run and cost many times the original budget. This blog on the subject suggests that this is a common practice in the US — if corporate America can do it, why not everyone else?"
top

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 7 years ago

FireFury03 writes "An unprecidented 19 countries have now responded during the contradictions phase of the ISO/IEC standardisation of Microsoft's OpenXML document format. At this time the responses haven't been made public and ECMA have the opportunity to propose resolutions, before the end of the month, to the problems cited. The question has to be raised — what will Microsoft do if the specification is rejected? Can they pressure the relevent people or will they have to withdraw the specification and work up a new, more sane one? In any case, it's good to see that there are some sane people who aren't completely under Microsoft's thumb involved in the standardisation process."
top

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 7 years ago

FireFury03 writes "The British Standards Institute has issued a contradiction to Microsoft's OpenXML document format, blocking it's fast-track ISO standardisation for 90 days. The article states that "Proponents of the rival Open Document Format" are opposed to the format as there is "no point in having two document standards." This seems to miss the true problems with the (incomplete) OpenXML specification and the British Standards Institute have not yet stated the reasons for their objection."
top

FireFury03 FireFury03 writes  |  more than 7 years ago

FireFury03 writes "linux.com has an article about how eBay are discriminating against Linux users after revising their Sell Your Item web tools.
"The tool is the sellers' auction setup wizard officially named Sell Your Item. eBay rolled out Sell Your Item 3.0 at the end of the summer, adding some more AJAX-ified flair and polish. It was October before I dusted off a relic in need of selling and tried the new form for myself, and found that it didn't work in Linux."
The article goes on to say that kludging your browser's User-Agent string to pretend to be Windows works around the problem, although I haven't got it to work (it serves up a different version of the page but it's still broken). Whilest you can still use the old system to list new items, there doesn't seem to be any solution for those of us who listed items with the new tool and now want to go back to revise the listing without any access to Windows machines."

Journals

FireFury03 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>