That's fine - and my point was that Google always offers lower level access than their competitors, so any attempt to obfuscate their services can be bypassed one way or another. Like how they offer IMAP when almost nobody else does, CalDAV for calendars, and hopefully CardDav for contacts soon!
That IE 6,7,8 rarely displays pages correctly is not entirely accurate. Designers already code for the worst common denominator. If a web site doesn't display correctly in IE6 and a significant portion of their users *have* IE6, then that's a failure on the part of the designer. It's a terrible burden for the poor designers (myself included) but there's no need to strongarm the computer illiterate into an upgrade just so we can have the eye candy we want.
I love the dial on my toaster oven, but hated when my microwave had one. Yes, the microwave has a clock, but I never set it. It's just that I need a little more precision in setting the timer because it cooks so fast and a keypad really helps with that.
Except that you're party wrong. It WAS a regular expression, but they had properly sanitized their main URL code. The problem was that a hash symbol in a URL, which is a valid part of a URL, was being converted wrong specifically by the t.co url shortener that they were starting to use combined with their hashtag regex:
I think you read everything I said and understand none of it. We're talking about the original CSS exploit vs. the JavaScript version. The bug was related to how Twitter parses hashtags when they are part of a URL. Only the javascript version would have used an onmouseover=" secretly inserted into the URL after a hashtag. The CSS exploit probably looked more like www.something.com/#test"style='color: red;'
The javascript was inserted with an onmouseover (that twitter conveniently put into a specific spot in the HTML). Presumably, the CSS styles were done using a style attribute. I can't say for sure, I forgot what the code for the exploit looked like.
The server shouldn't really store HTML entities. You don't want to receive that junk in an XML API or to have to convert it for a non-HTML desktop client. You store the original and escape for display.
Don't get mixed up on Illinois. The Illinois state income tax is 3%. The state sales tax in Illinois is 6.25%. Everything else you just said must only apply in Chicago. Don't blame Springfield for Chicago's problems.
I don't know who this Pete Moss guy is. He seems to be either a DJ or a rock musician depending on which guy you're referring to. He doesn't seem to be into heavy metals. I'd say it would be far easier to use peat moss
The DMCA itself has an interoperability clause. And there's plenty of people with older DVI monitors who would love to simply use them for viewing of legally purchased HD movies. But we all know that Intel will file suits and win anyway.
OK, well if you really want to get pedantic, then no - they won't fit in the palm of one's hand. But that's not what I was afraid of being taken figuratively - I was certain that would be.
I'm pretty sure that the patents were held by just a few companies and they weren't licensing to anyone. Complete monitors and TV's were assembled by a wide number of companies, but I was pretty sure that it was still only a handful manufacturing the actual panels.
By that standard, Google would have to be attempting to make these people unemployable, or severely restricting their ability to find a new job. I'd argue that they're doing neither. Nor is that the result.
I use NET10 prepay (on AT&T towers), and I only get charged for a text when I open it. I get a tiny preview of the first few letters and the sender for free. On top of that, it's only 5 each without a texting package.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine - and my point was that Google always offers lower level access than their competitors, so any attempt to obfuscate their services can be bypassed one way or another. Like how they offer IMAP when almost nobody else does, CalDAV for calendars, and hopefully CardDav for contacts soon!
Sorry - I meant to say:
https://mail.google.com/a/schoolmaildomain.edu/
Can't you just go to:
https://www.google.com/a/schoolmaildomain.edu/
Oh, so THAT'S why Slashdot doesn't support a wider Unicode character set.
That IE 6,7,8 rarely displays pages correctly is not entirely accurate. Designers already code for the worst common denominator. If a web site doesn't display correctly in IE6 and a significant portion of their users *have* IE6, then that's a failure on the part of the designer. It's a terrible burden for the poor designers (myself included) but there's no need to strongarm the computer illiterate into an upgrade just so we can have the eye candy we want.
congratulations.
I love the dial on my toaster oven, but hated when my microwave had one. Yes, the microwave has a clock, but I never set it. It's just that I need a little more precision in setting the timer because it cooks so fast and a keypad really helps with that.
From the article
From the article
Except that you're party wrong. It WAS a regular expression, but they had properly sanitized their main URL code. The problem was that a hash symbol in a URL, which is a valid part of a URL, was being converted wrong specifically by the t.co url shortener that they were starting to use combined with their hashtag regex:
http:/twitter.com/test#@"onmouseover="javascript:alaert('helloworld');"/
I think you read everything I said and understand none of it. We're talking about the original CSS exploit vs. the JavaScript version. The bug was related to how Twitter parses hashtags when they are part of a URL. Only the javascript version would have used an onmouseover=" secretly inserted into the URL after a hashtag. The CSS exploit probably looked more like www.something.com/#test"style='color: red;'
The javascript was inserted with an onmouseover (that twitter conveniently put into a specific spot in the HTML). Presumably, the CSS styles were done using a style attribute. I can't say for sure, I forgot what the code for the exploit looked like.
There's a difference between the OEM system builder kits and the OEM software you get at an online retailer.
I should have specified "From the perspective of the U.S."
The server shouldn't really store HTML entities. You don't want to receive that junk in an XML API or to have to convert it for a non-HTML desktop client. You store the original and escape for display.
Don't get mixed up on Illinois. The Illinois state income tax is 3%. The state sales tax in Illinois is 6.25%. Everything else you just said must only apply in Chicago. Don't blame Springfield for Chicago's problems.
I don't know who this Pete Moss guy is. He seems to be either a DJ or a rock musician depending on which guy you're referring to. He doesn't seem to be into heavy metals. I'd say it would be far easier to use peat moss
And he'd have to move. Americans can't have dual citizenship.
The DMCA itself has an interoperability clause. And there's plenty of people with older DVI monitors who would love to simply use them for viewing of legally purchased HD movies. But we all know that Intel will file suits and win anyway.
OK, well if you really want to get pedantic, then no - they won't fit in the palm of one's hand. But that's not what I was afraid of being taken figuratively - I was certain that would be.
I'm pretty sure that the patents were held by just a few companies and they weren't licensing to anyone. Complete monitors and TV's were assembled by a wide number of companies, but I was pretty sure that it was still only a handful manufacturing the actual panels.
I'd say the overall free market has lower wages than they do anyway. I'm not sure if it's really fair to only compare the biggest companies.
By that standard, Google would have to be attempting to make these people unemployable, or severely restricting their ability to find a new job. I'd argue that they're doing neither. Nor is that the result.
True, but if you throw a peanut at someone, you're not going to get charged with attempted murder either.
I use NET10 prepay (on AT&T towers), and I only get charged for a text when I open it. I get a tiny preview of the first few letters and the sender for free. On top of that, it's only 5 each without a texting package.