The idea to tax all emails is terrible. First, only those who abuse the system (spammers) should suffer from any change we take and second, those of us with legimate needs (opt-in mailing list admins) must not be charged if it's possible to make it work without money (like it's working today). Trust me, I receive many mails from various mailing lists and I don't want to pay for those just so that the admin can cost the taxes to distribute the list contents.
In addition, spammers would try to workaround those taxes, and possibly succeed, just like they forge the headers of spam they send today. As a result, legimate users would pay the tax and spammers would send the spam for free. Adding some heavy-weight bureaucracy to the problem (tax system) isn't the solution.
The idea in A Bounty on Spammers article seems like a one possible way to go. It's not perfect because it doesn't get rid of the wasted bandwidth immediatly as it doesn't outlaw spam, only spam that isn't clearly marked as spam. I'm not entirely sure about the $10000 bounty the article suggests. I think it should be proportional to the number of spams sent -- say, $5 per spam sent. And make that $50 per spam sent if the spammer tried to forge headers! It would really hurt to send one million spams with forged headers unlike today.
Once we have [ADV:] in every spam we get, we can modify SMTP servers to return "555 Advertisements not allowed" if one tries to send a spam and save some wasted bandwidth.
Alternatively, once we get micropayments work, we can allow spammers to send spam that transfers some money to the reader once he reads the spam. Because sending spam doesn't cost anything, the spammer could choose to pay some small amount of money to get the receiver to read the spam.
You have 25 paid advertisements in your inbox. If you read all of those, you'll reveice $2 to your MicroPayments Account. What do you want to do? [Read advertisements] [Remove advertisements]"
Perhaps some poor guy could make a living reading spam?
What worries me is that Carmack has gotten so caught up in his ragdoll physics that he'll forget to make it look spooky. One of the things that made Doom I and II so good was precisely the fact that it wasn't true 3D - when you looked at a bad guy he was a perfect bitmapped image of that bad guy, not a frame of painted triangles. Unless Doom III has some unbelievably huge number of triangles for each model, i'm not holding out much hope for realistic-looking monsters. I'd rather have low-res bitmaps than high-res high-poly-count frames.
Are you sure? Would you really rather have graphics that looked like DOOM2 instead of Final Fantasy (the movie) or Monsters Inc (hopefully DOOM's monsters are more scary)? Pretty much all movies use high-res high-poly-count frames for the FX shots. The only problem with the games is that most games have less than 20K polys per frame when you would really want 20-80M polys per frame [1].
Unfortunately, DOOM3 isn't going to display that many polygons. I guess it's more like 200K polys per frame but I'm pretty confidient that DOOM3 as a whole does look better with its polygon based characters than any game with pre-rendered characters glued on more-or-less-static background. That is, if you have hardware to run DOOM3 with full rendering quality.
[1] It has been claimed that one would need roughly 80M triangles to model a single scene so that it would be indistinguishable from the real thing. One could first thing that because 1024x768 screen has only about 780K pixels one could have one polygon per pixel with a 780K poly model for the entire scene. However, once you start throwing transcludent stuff to the scene, you'll notice that you need more than one polygon per pixel if you want high quality rendering. In addition, as DOOM3 has shadows, some polygons outside the scene in your view can cast shadows to the scene and increase the complexity despite the fact that the polygons that made up the shadowing object aren't visible in the final picture. If you don't need shadows, some voxel-based technique could be the answer. However, without the shadows, the end result would be far from great -- I'm not aware of any technique to quickly render shadows with voxel-based scene.
My client is literally blind in that all he can see are vague shapes. He is also a hard-core smoker and his voice is fairly inconsistant.
[...] At this point, frustrated, I realized that since I can type totally with MY eyes closed, he should be able to as well.
I have to agree that the best input method for a blind is touch typing (it's the best input method for the rest of us, too). I'd also suggest using console apps only, as I cannot see any advantage from the use of GUI apps. Mouse is practically useless if you cannot see the cursor.
While reading your description about how that blind client is learning touch typing, it came to my mind that some people can listen morse code really fast. If this legally blind person can see changes in lighting then perhaps some kind of visual morse code could be faster output method than voice output. The screen would flash between white and black... you get the idea.
Any morse code gurus here? How fast could one "read" that way? Perhaps combine that with voice output: the UI specific stuff could be outputted to voice output and the content could be outputted to visual morse code. Or the other way around. Separating UI and content could be a bonus here too.
One catch: The company has to get your private unrandomized data first.
Yep, and if you trust them to randomize the information, then you can probably trust that they don't abuse the information anyway so there's no need to randomize it.
Actually, you got it backwards: horizontal resolution of 1440 pixels over a 60 foot wide movie screen results to 1440 pixels / 60 foot = 2 pixels / inch. Not 2 inches / pixel. So the subtitle letter in your example would consists of 24 pixels which many of us would regard as acceptable quality (check out a 24 pixel font on your screen with antializing on). It would definately look better than the subtitling I'm used to see here in Finland. Also, they could use non-square pixels (anamorphic picture).
In addition, they could overlay the subtitles from another source so that subtitles had better resolution (end user DVD players do this too). The movie would need to get scaled and the projector would need to have better resolution than 1440 pixels horizontally. I doubt that many digital movie theaters have much better projector, though.
As for the 35 film quality. Yes, original copy (from which the digital representation would be scanned) does have acceptable noise level and resolution. However, the copy you're seeing in local movie theater is a copy of a copy. Sometimes it does look good, but most of the time it's more or less blurry compared to what the projector could display in a sunny day scenario.
DVD format isn't good enough to hold to movie.. I am taking a guess that even after encoding movies would be many terabytes in size.. so that would mean 100's of DVD's to hold 1 movie.
Are you trolling or could it really be that you haven't ever seen a movie in theater or a DVD? Sure, MPEG2 on a DVD isn't high quality enough for movie theaters, but it isn't that much worse. Double both vertical and horizontal resolution and you should have better image quality than 35mm movie theaters (remember that those rolls are of Nth generation). Resulting movie should take about four times as much as an average DVD movie so make it 4 discs. Perhaps five if the movie uses SDDS sound.
Correctly authored progressive HDTV stream should contain about equivalent image quality as your average 35mm copy of movie. Film could have a little more detail but also much more noise.
Specifically selecting the columns you need so that the SQL server does not have to determine what the columns are. SELECT * isn't even really a performance hit in most modern RDBMS, though.
More importantly, if you define in which order and which fields (columns) you want, you don't need to rewrite every damn piece of code that uses the results after adding one new column to the table because the result set stays the same. You could use views or something else instead as a workaround, but why to make the solution so hard? The problem certainly isn't.
[...]Having said that, CSS makes it difficult to do some things that tables can do easily (columnar layout), which is why many people still use very simple tables for basic layout[...]
You could just use CSS rule display:table or display:table-row or display:table-cell depending what you're after for. Pros: you can use table-like formatting without totally messing the markup. Cons: Internet Explorer doesn't support table* values for display property.
MSIE6.x is becoming next NN4.x when it comes to standards compliance...
Internet Explorer is NOTORIOUS for not following standards.
Just yesterday I was learning XHTML+SMIL and found this MS technology called HTML+TIME (check the page, they even link to draft of XHTML+SMIL). Now, the funny bit is that XHTML+SMIL Profile W3C Note is authored by Microsoft but regardless of that, their implemention in form of HTML+TIME does differ from the W3C version quite a bit. What should we think when Microsoft helps W3C to author new specs and in the same time they implement totally incompatible implementation of the very same idea?
If you happen to have MSIE 5.5 or newer installed, check out some HTML+TIME demos (hopefully you don't slash down the poor guy). It seems that you need javascript turned on even thought the demos do not contain any javascript. Now, I must admit that those demos aren't that great looking, but look at the source. Pretty small and readable files compared to similar flash stuff.
I think this new MSFT license is indeed an open source license. However, it isn't a copyleft license. Here's how I see difference licenses:
GPL: You can use this software distribution any way you like. If you decide to distribute this version or any derivative works, the distribution license must be GPL and the software must be made available in source form. Derivate works are not allowed to be distributed in object [a.k.a. binary] form only.
Shared Source License for Microsoft ASP.NET Starter Kit: You can use this software distribution according to the terms specified in the EULA. If you decide to distribute this version or any derivative works you have two choices: (a) distribution is in object form and the distribution license is compatible with this license; or (b) distribution is in source form and it's distributed under this license. Derivate works must be allowed to be distributed in object form only.
BSD: do whatever you want but give credit where credit is due.
[AC wrote "I had typed 'rm gcc-1.17' instead of 'cd gcc-1.17'" to which tuxedo-steve replied "Thank god that cd doesn't have a recursive switch."]
Actually, cp does (at least GNU cp).
And this does matter because.....? Notice that there's a huge difference between cd and cp. Do you really think that cd -R foobar should do something special?
These guys are developing something a motorcycle without pedals[?] using a diesel/electric like the hybrid cars and claiming 180mpg, which seems doubtful [...]
Considering they're using diesel instead of gasoline, I guess 180mpg is perfectly possible. They also mention that they're currently using existing diesel motor instead of their own 125 cc engine still under development. Also the 180mpg is the target, not the current result.
It seems they are targetting to develop a diesel engine of which only function is to keep the bike running at the cruise speed and the acceleration is handled by the electric motor the company has already designed. For such a motor, 180mpg should be possible.
I wouldn't invest money on the company without seeing more detail, though.
Instead, create an XML format that is specific to your needs and write a DTD or XML-Schema that describes it. If you need to translate it to someone elses' XML document format, a quick XSLT stylesheet will transform the document with a minimum of effort.
It's a minimum of effort only if you're already familiar with DTD or XML-Schema and XSL(T). I don't see how average office worker could ever do anything with XSL(T) because they would need to learn at least XPath first.
If you know about some easy to use frontend to create XSL(T) files, please, tell us about it. Even a document authoring software that would automatically adapt to a DTD would be a nice start.
Re:Separating Content from Presentation a Good Thi
on
Office 2003 and XML
·
· Score: 1
An XML file is supposed to have no presentation.
I wish it was that simple. Take, for example, XSL. Are you telling that XSL files aren't XML files? OK, so we agree that XSL is built on XML technology and XSL files are parsed with the same parser as any other XML file, right? Guess what? XSL means "The Extensible Stylesheet Language", which, like the name suggests, has something to do with the presentation.
XML is simply a format to store structured documents. If your document has no real structure a valid XML document (without XML declaration) could look like <data>...encoded binary data here...</data>.
You're right that it's a good idea to separate content and presentation but XML doesn't require (or even suggest) that.
I think you're a bit of an optimist, though, in saying that we will stop burning oil because of price in the next 30 years. [...]
But the 36 year estimation was based on the "fact" that the usage would stay on its current level. If you check those usage numbers, it's pretty clear that Asia could double it's usage under 10-15 years. Africa and South America would probably soon follow if the oil kept its low price. I'm not entirely sure if I'm an optimist or a pessimist when I state we'll be using something else after 30 years... It just might turn out that we don't have any cheap and dense energy source in that time.
You will also block attachments with.exe extensions, because they are represented as URLs too.
Oh.. and attachments without ".exe" extension but with MIME-type that tell the system it's an executable get through? Nice system...
I'm not familiar with URLScan or ISSLockdown but they sound a lot like a hacky patch to a broken architecture. I'm happy I don't need to use any of those pieces of software:-)
> Figure 2: World Petroleum Consumption (idem) 77,125 thousand barrels per day.
I find it interesting that US alone is using about the same amount of oil as Europe, Central and South America combined. Or the entire Asian uses only a bit more than US.
> So at current rate of consumption, all oil on Earth will be burnt in 36 year.
The remaining oil reserves are only estimates and all the previous estimates have been proved totally incorrect. I wouldn't give much weight to the number. I agree that the current comsumption level cannot stay forever. Oil probably never ends, in some point it just comes so expensive to use that we stop burning it for energy. This probably happens sooner than 30 years.
GM's even spending a good portion of its money on hydrogen powered cars, which don't create any CO2.
Unfortunately, that hydrogen must come from somewhere and AFAIK all real sources need more or less electricity to generate the hydrogen. If the car successfully burns all the hydrogen you don't get any CO2 but the CO2 has been already produced while producing the hydrogen. Hydrogen is only somewhat nice way to store huge amounts of electricity for longer periods. And the changes are high that you generate some NO2 while burning the hydrogen. If the amount is meaningful, I don't know.
I'm not against electric cars but I just want to remind that all choices have lots of cons too.
OWA will turn this subject-line into the document name at the end of a URL. URLScan sees 'https://(fq.servername)/exchange/This is the Visio....msg', and parses the sequence of four 'dots' as a possible directory traversal. Access is denied!
IMO, the OWA is doing somewhat stupid thing here, but that should work anyway. URLScan seems seriously broken. Perhaps I'm a little stupid but could somebody explain how string "This is the Visio....msg" could be ever interpreted to mean "directory travelsal" instead of simple file name? And while you're on it, could you please also explain why IIS doesn't include equivalent functionality (sensible logging, file size limits etc) by default. It cannot be because of "bloat".
All the groovy advanced features are supported only under IE.
Are you really surprised that MS product (OWA) works better with MS product (IE) than with some competing browser? Me neither.
mine wasn't there eather... zaqwsxcderfvbgtyhnmjuiklop
(-: Easy to remember when not using normal QWERTY keyboard, isn't it? If you want password that can be typed in faster just use alternating keys from both sides of the keyboard. Use the shift key here and there and break the alternating order once or twice and you've pretty solid password. Of couse, you shouldn't use that simple pattern.
Something like zMajqwUsiEkDlc should be pretty good password and relatively easy to remember once you have keyboard in front of you. Of course, that is far from random but the length helps a lot.
there are quite a few people that can hear the extremely high-pitched whine of CRT's scanning - we can tell if a TV is on in a room without looking with it on mute
Yes, but considering that the "extremely high-piched whine" of a TV set is around 16kHz you really don't need exceptionally good hearing to be able to sense it.
OHOH, I'm pretty sure nobody can hear the scanning frequency of an average computer monitor. That's because the horizontal scan rate is too high to be heard. Note that some other noises that come out from your monitor are still possible. Usually those are generated by a poor quality power supply.
If you have a TV that makes that whining sound you can get it silenced by getting its deflection coils re-lacquered.
One of the primary reasons for the criticism of 3DMark2003 is the fact that it *DOESN'T* use DX9 extensively. Pixel shader 1.1 and 1.4 are primarily used, which is absolutely laughable
Uhh.. You didn't read the reply, did you? OK, I thought so. Here's an excerpt from it:
The argument here is that game test 4 is not "DirectX 9 enough". Once again, a good application should
draw a scene as efficiently as possible. In the case of game test 4 this means that some objects use Pixel
Shaders 2.0, and some use 1.4 or 1.1 if a more complex shader is not required. Because each shader
model is a superset of the prior shader models, this will be very efficient on all DirectX 9 hardware. In
addition, the entire benchmark has been developed to be a full DirectX 9 benchmark[...]
(emphasis mine)
Do you think your web browser should use DirectX 9 pixels shaders to render text, too?
Open two windows. Try dragging a tab from one window to another. [...] Try reordering tabs within a window. [...] Try taking two windows and combining them into one with two tabs. Can't do it!
Doesn't work in Mozilla. Works in Phoenix (I know, MacOS cannot run that) once you download Tabbed Browsing Extensions (one mouse click on a web site and two OK buttons). I guess the feature will be ported to Mozilla (it's only a piece of JavaScript and XUL). Currently the developers have more important stuff to do... Mozilla's implementation could be better, but it's already much better than anything the window management that come with MacOS or Windows can do.
There's nothing intuitive about it. A window is a document.
Think about it the other way around: the internet isn't a collection of documents. It's a one big document and browser windows are only views to it. It's intuitive to have multiple paraller views to such a huge document. In fact, it's that huge that you have to make groups from those views (tabs in different windows) to be able to handle as many views as you would want to use and still you can view only really tiny part of the whole document.
Yeah, you can also think pages as stand alone documents but it's only one way to think it. Note that nobody forces you to use tabs and Mozilla and Safari work fine without those.
Contrary to common belief, a change isn't always a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition, spammers would try to workaround those taxes, and possibly succeed, just like they forge the headers of spam they send today. As a result, legimate users would pay the tax and spammers would send the spam for free. Adding some heavy-weight bureaucracy to the problem (tax system) isn't the solution.
The idea in A Bounty on Spammers article seems like a one possible way to go. It's not perfect because it doesn't get rid of the wasted bandwidth immediatly as it doesn't outlaw spam, only spam that isn't clearly marked as spam. I'm not entirely sure about the $10000 bounty the article suggests. I think it should be proportional to the number of spams sent -- say, $5 per spam sent. And make that $50 per spam sent if the spammer tried to forge headers! It would really hurt to send one million spams with forged headers unlike today.
Once we have [ADV:] in every spam we get, we can modify SMTP servers to return "555 Advertisements not allowed" if one tries to send a spam and save some wasted bandwidth.
Alternatively, once we get micropayments work, we can allow spammers to send spam that transfers some money to the reader once he reads the spam. Because sending spam doesn't cost anything, the spammer could choose to pay some small amount of money to get the receiver to read the spam.
Perhaps some poor guy could make a living reading spam?about:<input type>
in the url bar and IE crashes.
The important thing is to leave the value of type attribute undefined.
For example, this works too:
about:<input with sans-serif type "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US">
Are you sure? Would you really rather have graphics that looked like DOOM2 instead of Final Fantasy (the movie) or Monsters Inc (hopefully DOOM's monsters are more scary)? Pretty much all movies use high-res high-poly-count frames for the FX shots. The only problem with the games is that most games have less than 20K polys per frame when you would really want 20-80M polys per frame [1].
Unfortunately, DOOM3 isn't going to display that many polygons. I guess it's more like 200K polys per frame but I'm pretty confidient that DOOM3 as a whole does look better with its polygon based characters than any game with pre-rendered characters glued on more-or-less-static background. That is, if you have hardware to run DOOM3 with full rendering quality.
[1] It has been claimed that one would need roughly 80M triangles to model a single scene so that it would be indistinguishable from the real thing. One could first thing that because 1024x768 screen has only about 780K pixels one could have one polygon per pixel with a 780K poly model for the entire scene. However, once you start throwing transcludent stuff to the scene, you'll notice that you need more than one polygon per pixel if you want high quality rendering. In addition, as DOOM3 has shadows, some polygons outside the scene in your view can cast shadows to the scene and increase the complexity despite the fact that the polygons that made up the shadowing object aren't visible in the final picture. If you don't need shadows, some voxel-based technique could be the answer. However, without the shadows, the end result would be far from great -- I'm not aware of any technique to quickly render shadows with voxel-based scene.
I have to agree that the best input method for a blind is touch typing (it's the best input method for the rest of us, too). I'd also suggest using console apps only, as I cannot see any advantage from the use of GUI apps. Mouse is practically useless if you cannot see the cursor.
While reading your description about how that blind client is learning touch typing, it came to my mind that some people can listen morse code really fast. If this legally blind person can see changes in lighting then perhaps some kind of visual morse code could be faster output method than voice output. The screen would flash between white and black... you get the idea.
Any morse code gurus here? How fast could one "read" that way? Perhaps combine that with voice output: the UI specific stuff could be outputted to voice output and the content could be outputted to visual morse code. Or the other way around. Separating UI and content could be a bonus here too.
Yep, and if you trust them to randomize the information, then you can probably trust that they don't abuse the information anyway so there's no need to randomize it.
Next idea?
In addition, they could overlay the subtitles from another source so that subtitles had better resolution (end user DVD players do this too). The movie would need to get scaled and the projector would need to have better resolution than 1440 pixels horizontally. I doubt that many digital movie theaters have much better projector, though.
As for the 35 film quality. Yes, original copy (from which the digital representation would be scanned) does have acceptable noise level and resolution. However, the copy you're seeing in local movie theater is a copy of a copy. Sometimes it does look good, but most of the time it's more or less blurry compared to what the projector could display in a sunny day scenario.
Are you trolling or could it really be that you haven't ever seen a movie in theater or a DVD? Sure, MPEG2 on a DVD isn't high quality enough for movie theaters, but it isn't that much worse. Double both vertical and horizontal resolution and you should have better image quality than 35mm movie theaters (remember that those rolls are of Nth generation). Resulting movie should take about four times as much as an average DVD movie so make it 4 discs. Perhaps five if the movie uses SDDS sound.
Correctly authored progressive HDTV stream should contain about equivalent image quality as your average 35mm copy of movie. Film could have a little more detail but also much more noise.
Or features.... Try following in user.js (remember to remove extra spaces added by lame-o-matic!)
user_pref("mail.citation_color", "#777777");_ support", true);" , false);e _image", true);
pref("mail.quoted_graphical", false);
pref("mail.display_glyph", false);
pref("mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed", true);
user_pref("mailnews.display.disable_format_flowed
pref("mail.display_struct", true);
pref("mail.send_struct", false);
user_pref("mailnews.display.html_as", 1);
user_pref("mailnews.display.prefer_plaintext", true);
user_pref("mailnews.message_display.allow.plugins
user_pref("mailnews.message_display.disable_remot
user_pref("mailnews.remember_selected_message", true);
user_pref("mailnews.show_send_progress", false);
user_pref("mail.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.default.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.id1.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.id2.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.id3.compose_html", false);
Or use UI provided by Mozilla to change those prefs. You can find other hidden Mozilla prefs here.
More importantly, if you define in which order and which fields (columns) you want, you don't need to rewrite every damn piece of code that uses the results after adding one new column to the table because the result set stays the same. You could use views or something else instead as a workaround, but why to make the solution so hard? The problem certainly isn't.
You could just use CSS rule display:table or display:table-row or display:table-cell depending what you're after for. Pros: you can use table-like formatting without totally messing the markup. Cons: Internet Explorer doesn't support table* values for display property.
MSIE6.x is becoming next NN4.x when it comes to standards compliance...
Just yesterday I was learning XHTML+SMIL and found this MS technology called HTML+TIME (check the page, they even link to draft of XHTML+SMIL). Now, the funny bit is that XHTML+SMIL Profile W3C Note is authored by Microsoft but regardless of that, their implemention in form of HTML+TIME does differ from the W3C version quite a bit. What should we think when Microsoft helps W3C to author new specs and in the same time they implement totally incompatible implementation of the very same idea?
If you happen to have MSIE 5.5 or newer installed, check out some HTML+TIME demos (hopefully you don't slash down the poor guy). It seems that you need javascript turned on even thought the demos do not contain any javascript. Now, I must admit that those demos aren't that great looking, but look at the source. Pretty small and readable files compared to similar flash stuff.
I think this new MSFT license is indeed an open source license. However, it isn't a copyleft license. Here's how I see difference licenses:
GPL: You can use this software distribution any way you like. If you decide to distribute this version or any derivative works, the distribution license must be GPL and the software must be made available in source form. Derivate works are not allowed to be distributed in object [a.k.a. binary] form only.
Shared Source License for Microsoft ASP.NET Starter Kit: You can use this software distribution according to the terms specified in the EULA. If you decide to distribute this version or any derivative works you have two choices: (a) distribution is in object form and the distribution license is compatible with this license; or (b) distribution is in source form and it's distributed under this license. Derivate works must be allowed to be distributed in object form only.
BSD: do whatever you want but give credit where credit is due.
[AC wrote "I had typed 'rm gcc-1.17' instead of 'cd gcc-1.17'" to which tuxedo-steve replied "Thank god that cd doesn't have a recursive switch."]
And this does matter because .....? Notice that there's a huge difference between cd and cp. Do you really think that cd -R foobar should do something special?
Considering they're using diesel instead of gasoline, I guess 180mpg is perfectly possible. They also mention that they're currently using existing diesel motor instead of their own 125 cc engine still under development. Also the 180mpg is the target, not the current result.
It seems they are targetting to develop a diesel engine of which only function is to keep the bike running at the cruise speed and the acceleration is handled by the electric motor the company has already designed. For such a motor, 180mpg should be possible.
I wouldn't invest money on the company without seeing more detail, though.
It's a minimum of effort only if you're already familiar with DTD or XML-Schema and XSL(T). I don't see how average office worker could ever do anything with XSL(T) because they would need to learn at least XPath first.
If you know about some easy to use frontend to create XSL(T) files, please, tell us about it. Even a document authoring software that would automatically adapt to a DTD would be a nice start.
I wish it was that simple. Take, for example, XSL. Are you telling that XSL files aren't XML files? OK, so we agree that XSL is built on XML technology and XSL files are parsed with the same parser as any other XML file, right? Guess what? XSL means "The Extensible Stylesheet Language", which, like the name suggests, has something to do with the presentation.
XML is simply a format to store structured documents. If your document has no real structure a valid XML document (without XML declaration) could look like <data>...encoded binary data here...</data>.
You're right that it's a good idea to separate content and presentation but XML doesn't require (or even suggest) that.
But the 36 year estimation was based on the "fact" that the usage would stay on its current level. If you check those usage numbers, it's pretty clear that Asia could double it's usage under 10-15 years. Africa and South America would probably soon follow if the oil kept its low price. I'm not entirely sure if I'm an optimist or a pessimist when I state we'll be using something else after 30 years... It just might turn out that we don't have any cheap and dense energy source in that time.
"Pretty"? "Really" would be a better word.
You will also block attachments with .exe extensions, because they are represented as URLs too.
Oh.. and attachments without ".exe" extension but with MIME-type that tell the system it's an executable get through? Nice system...
I'm not familiar with URLScan or ISSLockdown but they sound a lot like a hacky patch to a broken architecture. I'm happy I don't need to use any of those pieces of software :-)
World Petroleum Consumption (idem) 77,125 thousand barrels per day.
I find it interesting that US alone is using about the same amount of oil as Europe, Central and South America combined. Or the entire Asian uses only a bit more than US.
> So at current rate of consumption, all oil on Earth will be burnt in 36 year.
The remaining oil reserves are only estimates and all the previous estimates have been proved totally incorrect. I wouldn't give much weight to the number. I agree that the current comsumption level cannot stay forever. Oil probably never ends, in some point it just comes so expensive to use that we stop burning it for energy. This probably happens sooner than 30 years.
Unfortunately, that hydrogen must come from somewhere and AFAIK all real sources need more or less electricity to generate the hydrogen. If the car successfully burns all the hydrogen you don't get any CO2 but the CO2 has been already produced while producing the hydrogen. Hydrogen is only somewhat nice way to store huge amounts of electricity for longer periods. And the changes are high that you generate some NO2 while burning the hydrogen. If the amount is meaningful, I don't know.
I'm not against electric cars but I just want to remind that all choices have lots of cons too.
IMO, the OWA is doing somewhat stupid thing here, but that should work anyway. URLScan seems seriously broken. Perhaps I'm a little stupid but could somebody explain how string "This is the Visio....msg" could be ever interpreted to mean "directory travelsal" instead of simple file name? And while you're on it, could you please also explain why IIS doesn't include equivalent functionality (sensible logging, file size limits etc) by default. It cannot be because of "bloat".
All the groovy advanced features are supported only under IE.
Are you really surprised that MS product (OWA) works better with MS product (IE) than with some competing browser? Me neither.
(-: Easy to remember when not using normal QWERTY keyboard, isn't it? If you want password that can be typed in faster just use alternating keys from both sides of the keyboard. Use the shift key here and there and break the alternating order once or twice and you've pretty solid password. Of couse, you shouldn't use that simple pattern.
Something like zMajqwUsiEkDlc should be pretty good password and relatively easy to remember once you have keyboard in front of you. Of course, that is far from random but the length helps a lot.
Yes, but considering that the "extremely high-piched whine" of a TV set is around 16kHz you really don't need exceptionally good hearing to be able to sense it.
OHOH, I'm pretty sure nobody can hear the scanning frequency of an average computer monitor. That's because the horizontal scan rate is too high to be heard. Note that some other noises that come out from your monitor are still possible. Usually those are generated by a poor quality power supply.
If you have a TV that makes that whining sound you can get it silenced by getting its deflection coils re-lacquered.
Uhh.. You didn't read the reply, did you? OK, I thought so. Here's an excerpt from it:
(emphasis mine)Do you think your web browser should use DirectX 9 pixels shaders to render text, too?
Doesn't work in Mozilla. Works in Phoenix (I know, MacOS cannot run that) once you download Tabbed Browsing Extensions (one mouse click on a web site and two OK buttons). I guess the feature will be ported to Mozilla (it's only a piece of JavaScript and XUL). Currently the developers have more important stuff to do... Mozilla's implementation could be better, but it's already much better than anything the window management that come with MacOS or Windows can do.
There's nothing intuitive about it. A window is a document.
Think about it the other way around: the internet isn't a collection of documents. It's a one big document and browser windows are only views to it. It's intuitive to have multiple paraller views to such a huge document. In fact, it's that huge that you have to make groups from those views (tabs in different windows) to be able to handle as many views as you would want to use and still you can view only really tiny part of the whole document.
Yeah, you can also think pages as stand alone documents but it's only one way to think it. Note that nobody forces you to use tabs and Mozilla and Safari work fine without those.
Contrary to common belief, a change isn't always a bad thing.