Yeah Ubuntu, how dare you trick me into using Firefox??!!!111!!!eleventy
Seriously though, every OS is going to come with some web browser or another as the default - Windows use IE, Macs use Safari and [at least the mainstream] Linux distros use FF - you can hardly describe it as immoral.
Who cares what your content is when your users will only ever view your content in fonts they have installed anyway?
On the web at least, something like this is only ever realistically be used for logotypes, and if your logotype needs the entire UTF-8 character set then really you have bigger issues than what font to use.
The only place I could see this possibly being an issue is if you were trying to run UGC in a Flash based site, but then again the moment "Flash site is not accessible!" is big news then I'll go home in my flying car to play Duke Nukem Forever.
I'm not sure, but it might be something to do with the enormous quantities of money that were made by the previous Tolkein films. When you have a cash cow, it would be folly not to milk it.
That rather depends on your intuition. I personally would intuit an upper bound of (3^9)/2 which would be further reduced by the fact that abs(n(o) - n(x)) <= 1 where n represents the number of each marker on the board.
You are of course correct. I was making a separate point rather than trying to argue with you.
In my experience (largely developing banking applications in LAMP environment) though, whilst a perfect separation of CSS,HTML,PHP/.NET,SQL is ideal, the boundaries are not so clean in reality and it is difficult to realistically work only in one area without gaining at least some exposure to the others. I was also obviously saying it isn't really all that difficult to be proficient in all of the above IM(NS)HO - after all, this is a passport application form, it shouldn't be developed by some high-school kid for their vacation project.
I can't see how you could possibly not blame the coders responsible. Sure, so it might not be entirely down to them, but I can't think of many bosses who when faced with:
"Option A and B: A & B achieve identical functionality but B comes with enormous security breach"
Would ever be likely to choose B if they were informed of the option. If they weren't informed then it's down to the coders again. Blame the bosses for the fact that this terrible code got live and got to leak sensitive data all over the internet, but at the end of the day terrible code is terrible code and doesn't come from anywhere but a coder.
Disclaimer: of course the other option might be that the bosses made someone do it who wasn't a coder at all but 'knew a bit about websites'. In which case it is entirely their fault, but I can't see that being the case for a project of this importance.
I haven't developed commercially in a while, but it was my understanding that for these larger sites the job would be split up.
One group is in charge of layout.
Another group is in charge of content (graphics, sounds, text).
Another one or two groups is in charge of client/server side scripting.
Another group is in charge of security.
And a final group is in charge of putting everything together.
...and the idea that 3 and 4 are separate and distinct is probably what caused this whole problem in the first place.
Most developers don't have the time to adequately learn every aspect of HTML, JavaScript, CSS, PHP, XML and SQL
Which is exactly why most developers are not be hired to build large applications containing huge amounts of sensitive customer data.
I make a living out of building exactly these kind of applications for major international banks and I simply wouldn't get hired if I didn't know about the above.
The developers should be ashamed of themselves for such a massive lapse, this really is security 101. Equally ashamed should be the people who decided not to bother with running proper penetration testing and security evaluation on such an application
My Maths degree would have been a BA if I hadn't carried on and turned it into a Masters, and that was Oxford. Generally OU offers BAs for just about everything.
I'm quite sure that you will not (for the easily foreseeable future anyway) actually *require* Silverlight to be installed. Simply that the average user will install some "application" and see an 'Additional plug-ins are required to view this content' and happily click through and get silverlight so they can compare the number monkeys against armchairs or something similarly inane.
Assuming you're not the kind of user whose facebook experience revolves around installing as many useless and annoying apps as you can then I doubt you'd see any difference even if Silverlight were to be pushed by Facebook. They seem fairly well clued regarding accessibility and cross-platform compatibility when it comes to their core functionality - the various bits of AJAX code all degrade reasonably well with JS disabled for example - it is only the 3rd party add-ons which cause issues.
Have you seen facebook recently?! Whilst it isn't quite at mySpace proportions there is a fair amount a person can do to fuck up their profiles*
(*and annoy me whilst they're at it.
FB: "friend" has invited you to become a pirate
JCII: FUCKOFFFUCKOFFFUCKOFFFUCKOFFFUCKOFF
FB: "friend" has been removed from your list of friends)
And before anyone starts telling me about how they gave [insert distro of choice] to their 84 yr old gran/4 yr old neice/dog (*delete as appropriate) and they could work it fine within minutes, we are talking about comparitive ease for Mr and Mrs J Public between switching to Linux and staying with Windows. Linux is improving, but I still would not say the switch is an easy one.
Possibly because advertising and marketing is the only real revenue stream for the services Google already provide. With a phone the revenue stream exists from line-rental and call charges.
The reason Google would want to move into the phone market is not necessarily to use it for direct marketing purposes but simply because they can see that mobile devices are currently, and will continue to be used more and more for accessing online services, and they want to make sure that people use their particular online services and the best way to ensure they are using Google's services and not A.N Competitors is to tie them to the device functionality. Similar reasoning to Microsoft producing an OS/software for mobile devices.
The best way to make sure people are using Google services on their handsets: make sure their handsets are optimised specifically to work with Google. For any other similar company, the mobile phone market would be impenetrable and such an approach would not be feasible, but as Apple have shown, having a sufficiently powerful brand can provide a market for a product which might not otherwise be successful.
I got the impression that the monthly charge was only to cover "hire" of the battery unit and didn;t include the actual electricity as well. I think you can add the cost of plugging the thing into the mains to charge to that $200 figure.
I appreciate that looking forward a larger proportion of our electricity will come from sustainable and green sources, but given the current situation I can;t see how they can claim an electric car to be 'carbon free'. Admittedly the car itself emits very little carbon, but this just means that the carbon emissions are being diverted to the power generation (unless of course, the electricity is being generated using a perpetual motion machine).
Also:
He points to the black steel chassis of a City standing on a nearby pallet; it's shipped preassembled from Thailand. At one station, workers attach the car's aluminum frame -- made in Denmark -- and drop in a French motor. At another station, prefabricated rust-and dent-resistant polymer-plastic body panels produced in Turkey are hung on the frame of a nearly completed car.
I'm not sure how shipping in different parts from all corners of the world necessarily helps the 'carbon-free' thing either.
Basically, my thinking is that until electricity supplies are all (or at least mostly) from renewable and sustainable sources then a small electric car is no more or less environmentally friendly than say a small diesel car.
All that means is that you will just get lazy people stopping half way up (and in some stations 2/3, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8 etc.) for a rest and blocking the stairs for everyone else. Also, I wouldn't fancy heaving a large suitcase in and out of some underground stations and I count myself as comparatively fit and strong.
That said, I do wonder why some people insist on standing still and being carried along, the moving walkways in Waterloo (I think) are the worst. A sad indictment of the human condition if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah Ubuntu, how dare you trick me into using Firefox??!!!111!!!eleventy
Seriously though, every OS is going to come with some web browser or another as the default - Windows use IE, Macs use Safari and [at least the mainstream] Linux distros use FF - you can hardly describe it as immoral.
Who cares what your content is when your users will only ever view your content in fonts they have installed anyway?
On the web at least, something like this is only ever realistically be used for logotypes, and if your logotype needs the entire UTF-8 character set then really you have bigger issues than what font to use.
The only place I could see this possibly being an issue is if you were trying to run UGC in a Flash based site, but then again the moment "Flash site is not accessible!" is big news then I'll go home in my flying car to play Duke Nukem Forever.
I'm not sure, but it might be something to do with the enormous quantities of money that were made by the previous Tolkein films. When you have a cash cow, it would be folly not to milk it.
That rather depends on your intuition. I personally would intuit an upper bound of (3^9)/2 which would be further reduced by the fact that abs(n(o) - n(x)) <= 1 where n represents the number of each marker on the board.
Either way 9! is way out.
You'll get your license confiscated for doing 90 in a 30 zone, less likely if you were doing 35. You were saying?
You are of course correct. I was making a separate point rather than trying to argue with you.
In my experience (largely developing banking applications in LAMP environment) though, whilst a perfect separation of CSS,HTML,PHP/.NET,SQL is ideal, the boundaries are not so clean in reality and it is difficult to realistically work only in one area without gaining at least some exposure to the others. I was also obviously saying it isn't really all that difficult to be proficient in all of the above IM(NS)HO - after all, this is a passport application form, it shouldn't be developed by some high-school kid for their vacation project.
Unless you're paying your coders $2million/hour, it doesn't. Now fixing it afterwards, that's a different question.
I can't see how you could possibly not blame the coders responsible. Sure, so it might not be entirely down to them, but I can't think of many bosses who when faced with:
"Option A and B: A & B achieve identical functionality but B comes with enormous security breach"
Would ever be likely to choose B if they were informed of the option. If they weren't informed then it's down to the coders again. Blame the bosses for the fact that this terrible code got live and got to leak sensitive data all over the internet, but at the end of the day terrible code is terrible code and doesn't come from anywhere but a coder.
Disclaimer: of course the other option might be that the bosses made someone do it who wasn't a coder at all but 'knew a bit about websites'. In which case it is entirely their fault, but I can't see that being the case for a project of this importance.
...and the idea that 3 and 4 are separate and distinct is probably what caused this whole problem in the first place.
Which is exactly why most developers are not be hired to build large applications containing huge amounts of sensitive customer data.
I make a living out of building exactly these kind of applications for major international banks and I simply wouldn't get hired if I didn't know about the above.
The developers should be ashamed of themselves for such a massive lapse, this really is security 101. Equally ashamed should be the people who decided not to bother with running proper penetration testing and security evaluation on such an application
There's nothing funny about gigantic anthropomorphic root vegetables. She's never been the same since...
I didn't realise that there was a gene which could predispose one to being born in Sweden.
Unless of course you mean the vegetable...
And what exactly do you suppose /. is if not a news aggregator?
Surely APTL is a (X)TLA?
My Maths degree would have been a BA if I hadn't carried on and turned it into a Masters, and that was Oxford. Generally OU offers BAs for just about everything.
I'm quite sure that you will not (for the easily foreseeable future anyway) actually *require* Silverlight to be installed. Simply that the average user will install some "application" and see an 'Additional plug-ins are required to view this content' and happily click through and get silverlight so they can compare the number monkeys against armchairs or something similarly inane.
Assuming you're not the kind of user whose facebook experience revolves around installing as many useless and annoying apps as you can then I doubt you'd see any difference even if Silverlight were to be pushed by Facebook. They seem fairly well clued regarding accessibility and cross-platform compatibility when it comes to their core functionality - the various bits of AJAX code all degrade reasonably well with JS disabled for example - it is only the 3rd party add-ons which cause issues.
Have you seen facebook recently?! Whilst it isn't quite at mySpace proportions there is a fair amount a person can do to fuck up their profiles*
(*and annoy me whilst they're at it.
FB: "friend" has invited you to become a pirate
JCII: FUCKOFFFUCKOFFFUCKOFFFUCKOFFFUCKOFF
FB: "friend" has been removed from your list of friends)
They could be following the Star Wars system. Windows Epidoe 1 anyone??
For certain very small values of easily.
And before anyone starts telling me about how they gave [insert distro of choice] to their 84 yr old gran/4 yr old neice/dog (*delete as appropriate) and they could work it fine within minutes, we are talking about comparitive ease for Mr and Mrs J Public between switching to Linux and staying with Windows. Linux is improving, but I still would not say the switch is an easy one.
Possibly because advertising and marketing is the only real revenue stream for the services Google already provide. With a phone the revenue stream exists from line-rental and call charges. The reason Google would want to move into the phone market is not necessarily to use it for direct marketing purposes but simply because they can see that mobile devices are currently, and will continue to be used more and more for accessing online services, and they want to make sure that people use their particular online services and the best way to ensure they are using Google's services and not A.N Competitors is to tie them to the device functionality. Similar reasoning to Microsoft producing an OS/software for mobile devices. The best way to make sure people are using Google services on their handsets: make sure their handsets are optimised specifically to work with Google. For any other similar company, the mobile phone market would be impenetrable and such an approach would not be feasible, but as Apple have shown, having a sufficiently powerful brand can provide a market for a product which might not otherwise be successful.
... causing global warming.
But will it run Linux?
I got the impression that the monthly charge was only to cover "hire" of the battery unit and didn;t include the actual electricity as well. I think you can add the cost of plugging the thing into the mains to charge to that $200 figure.
All that means is that you will just get lazy people stopping half way up (and in some stations 2/3, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8 etc.) for a rest and blocking the stairs for everyone else. Also, I wouldn't fancy heaving a large suitcase in and out of some underground stations and I count myself as comparatively fit and strong. That said, I do wonder why some people insist on standing still and being carried along, the moving walkways in Waterloo (I think) are the worst. A sad indictment of the human condition if you ask me.