As someone who works exclusively with e-commerce support and has seen a number of clients' store data, the situation generally ranges from frustratingly bad to comic ineptitude.
Was troubleshooting a client's osCommerce store to see if we could encrypt and decrypt credit card numbers and return them securely. OSC has a MySQL backend, so to make this a bit easier, I suggested he install phpMyAdmin.
"Oh, don't worry," he said, "we've already got it installed at www.mywebsite.com/phpMyAdmin."
When I went to the page, phpMA had been installed in "config" security - ie, any master of reverse-engineering that could guess he might have a folder called "phpMyAdmin" could see ALL of his tables and had root privileges on his store database.
Stupid.
Most end-users know little about protecting data and are only now starting to wise up because credit card fraud is RAMPANT and the card companies are complaining (and actually enforcing some new protection standards). I believe Visa/MC will start requiring at least RSA encryption of credit card data if customer information is stored on a publicly-accessible server.
Then there was the guy whose entire site was a group of perl scripts and whose "Checkout" script handled credit card information by setting - guess what? - COOKIES, with the full cc# and personal data available to anyone who would read the client cookie. No cookie domain, just raw cookies with plain unencrypted data.
It's a mystery to me that more people aren't blatantly ripped off, but thankfully, commercial hosts seem to be reasonably knowledgable about this and are taking appropriate precautions.
Also from TFA: His voice escalated to a crescendo as the audience laughed and applauded. "I'm feeling a little frisky on this topic right now!" he added.
Whoa there, big boy. Though it did remind me of a good line from Family Guy:
Peter Griffin: Hey, where's my VCR? Hillbilly #1: Dangit, Buck, I wanna use the sex box. Hillbilly #2: It's *my* sex box. And her name is Sony.
WINE support was abandoned in favor of their own SWF implementation, and it's been that way for a while in the development releases. They're developing their own implementation because, yes, it makes things less portable and less stable.
Mono rocks, and the latest 1.1 branch has support for System.Windows.Forms, the only (that I know of, anyway) cross-platform implementation of the GUI calls from.NET - native calls made on Windows, GDI+ and Cairo for other platforms. Truly a godsend for developing cross-platform apps in C#.
I wish the Mono project and Miguel the best - they have done some excellent, excellent work and deserve to be commended.
Try KnoppMyth. Self-booting ISO, installs Debian and tries to auto-configure much off-the-shelf PVR hardware. Their forums are full of helpful advice and list specific hardware that's known to work without issue (and workarounds for things that aren't).
The rest of my post? Dude, you summed it up in the first line: "Yes, SoundJam was better than iTunes. And iTunes 1 was based on SoundJam."
I took issue with the Fortune interviewer apparently being fuckin' amazed that they could turn out something like iTunes 1 in four months. And my reply is, well, it wasn't very good. Later I clarified and said, "okay, it got better" - and being a Mac-head, I use it every day, even on my Windows PC at work. But that doesn't change the fact that they basically rushed into the music player software business with a half-baked product that frankly wasn't very impressive until it became the sole point of communication with their iPod the next year.
Jeff Robbins also worked at Apple at the time.
No, he left Apple when Jobs arrived to go work on SoundJam. They later hired him back, as the article says, because he'd impressed them before. Frankly I'd be impressed by a 28-year-old with an MBA and a successful software company, too.
By iTunes 2, Apple had reached feature parity with SoundJam (except for skins). Since then, iTunes has just gotten better and better.
A fact also revisited in my second post. And so what? Again, that doesn't change the fact that their initial release was pretty crappy. I'm glad it got better (and went cross-platform) but I was happy with SJMP and resented Apple for essentially killing it for their own inferior product at the time.
Wow, for someone trying to dispel FUD, you're sure dispensing an impressive amount of your own.
You can run PHP4 just fine on Apache 2. The problem is NOT, as you say, directly with PHP, but with the libraries that are typically linked/compiled in when building PHP (mcrypt, imap, mysql, etc) that are not multi-thread safe. PHP will have the same problems (though it will run just fine with the prefork MPM) until the module authors get the code cleaned up, or you'll end up building a barebones PHP interpreter.
The 1.3 series is multi-process, which doesn't work terribly well on Windows. Apache2 brings far better Windows support, but either should run just fine on a Linux machine. Use whichever you're more familiar with.
Wow, record time. Mods got an itchy trigger finger today?
Listen, the original iTunes was crap - I'm sorry. I'm a long-time Mac user and today's iTunes is worlds ahead of the original incarnation they put out.
Here's an old review. They didn't even add an equalizer (standard on MP) until the second release! Everything that makes the program useful today was lacking when they first released it. The only thing this had going for it was the fact that it was free - and, thankfully, that it got a lot better.
the development that went into the original iTunes (only four months!)
That couldn't be because they cannibalized another product and its development staff, and pretty much produced a half-baked "brushed steel" version of the same, now could it?
I remember the original iTunes, and I far preferred the product they'd based it on, Casady & Greene's SoundJam MP.
It's not a buffer overflow, it's poor use of the open command in perl and hideously bad security practice to allow that command's arguments to a) contain practically any arbitrary value, and furthermore b) be passed from any browser that can find the script location. But this is why we chroot jail CGI scripts and avoid stupid use of system calls.
Re:More reviewing the review
on
Arch In Depth
·
· Score: 1
Relax, they're all perfectly reasonable JPEGs now. 30-40kb is still a bit much for a black and white terminal screen grab, but, well, they're passable.
No, I don't agree. Why do you think they call it the "third rail" of politics? When you grow up in a society that promises you a windfall when you retire, you're damned cautious not to let anyone fuck with that guarantee. Granted, we may HAVE to now, but I certainly think more than senior citizens have a stake in SS reform.
Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system, the same can be said of many social programs, especially when we're trying to apply New Deal economics to today's markets.
But that doesn't mean it's time to do away with the whole thing. What I should've said was, if you oppose Bush's idea of SS reform, then, you're only playing politics - and this "with us or against us" administration certainly believes it has the clout to paint its opponents that way.
I don't see how you can have an option to take money out of a system that will already have a shortfall / be broke in 50 years, and somehow not come up in the red, even sooner than if we keep the current system and stop spending the cash set aside for it like it's a fucking money tree for Bush's wars.
Typical assinine name-calling
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Sorry, but I became much less interested in what Bush had to say after he wrapped up his social security segment. Two lines, in particular:...we must pursue change with diligence, courage, and honesty
Translation: If you oppose SS reform, you are weak, a coward, and a liar....our children's future is more important than partisan politics!
Translation: If you oppose SS reform, you're playing politics, nothing more.
Guess what, I'd take a guy with 10 years experience over a recent MBA any day of the week. However, want to bet that in 3 years the MBA w/ 3 years post-MBA experience has gained more than the guy with 13 years and no MBA?
So, more or less what you're saying. And I agree, as I'm not knocking *everyone* with an MBA, just the ones that've crossed me recently, who exhibit a very irritating sense of entitlement with regard to their shiny new degree.
I'd hope that's not par for the course, and in my reply to the OP, who'd said "you can't learn these things in the classroom," I'll agree again and again and again. I've not had the pleasure of working for a boss with an MBA, but I've worked under some extremely outstanding people, and I believe it would've been a much different experience had someone prematurely stuck them in charge of me (or anyone else) simply because of credentials.
Look, I'm not knocking everyone with an MBA; I'm in a night program myself trying to get one. I worked my way there, so maybe I'm a bit bitter about the ones that aren't willing to take an entry-level position. It's a stepping stone, and you're right, there are some fundamentals that are taught that are hugely insightful in business operations.
I'm knocking the guys that think it's a key to the magical kingdom of management, the ones with a chip on their shoulder that presume to step in at any level and take the helm because they've got a piece of paper. I don't want a business genius, I want someone who will push their ego aside and WORK, and we can chat about operational theory over cigars and brandy in our off hours.
I disagree that someone with an MBA will advance more rapidly than someone with a decade of experience, and much can be gleaned from that kind of time if it's spent in increasingly responsible positions with a solid work history. Advancement isn't everything, and when you put in the time, you gain perspective. I'd rather the kid come to me a bit more humble than the ones I've seen. I'm biased, of course, but I'm much more impressed seeing solid employment history while acquiring that MBA, rather than someone who's looking to turn my business into a case study from their Economics textbook.
Honestly, I don't think it's the sort of thing you can learn in a course either.
Huzzah, thank you thank you thank you. Please repeat ad infinitum to all the MBAs who've come knocking on our door recently expecting to be appointed the VP the moment they're hired.
Experience is what truly moves you up in business, even moreso in IT. MBAs are a dime a dozen, and the fact that you can throw around terms like "demand elasticity" doesn't impress me as much as someone who's had to work as part of a team (better yet, lead a team) to get a product shipped on-time and well-tested.
cell phone companies will do anything short of offering you a blowjob to get you into a contract with a monthly fee (most of them lasting no less than a year)
Ahh, the elusive year-long blowjob...
Re:Easy way to make use of this soft without root?
on
Bugzilla 2.18 Goes Gold
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's mentioned in the docs - root access is not a requirement unless you want to create, say, a virtual host to run it from (like bugs.mysite.com instead of mysite.com/~username/bugs) or need to install additional perl packages. That is really the most difficult part of the setup. The files can reside anywhere and will be served up provided you have perl set up as the interpreter for.cgi files and have the proper perl packages, as well as a mysql database (not necessarily root on the db server). It may require some intervention from the sys admin, but you by no means have to be one. You can even substitute IIS if you want to. Most of the hurdles are cosmetic ones.
How would you call the iMac, power mac, $ANY mac a successes?
I'd call it a success as the Rev-A iMacs practically saved the company. Sure it's not "futuristic" or "stylish" by today's standards, but in 1998 it was every bit the smash hit it deserved to be. While other computer makers tried to make the PC appealing to a wider audience, gain adoption for USB, and attract users who had never touched a computer before, Apple succeeded in all three with the iMac, no question.
Remember that the "i" supposedly stood for "internet", and that this was the internet-enabled computer for the masses, with a 56K modem and built-in ethernet. Reviewers at the time raved at its simple, one-enclosure-for-everything design. I remember reading one of those "end-user" reviews where a chick groaned when opening a brand-new Dell, because, "3 boxes, this is already more complicated."
Apple tends to get the details right and knows satisfied customers are willing to pay a premium and keep coming back. It helped them that they set a bit of a fashion trend along the way. There were quite a few imitators that made Wintel iMac-alikes because the things just sold. I'd say imitation is a high indicator of success, as well. Apple sued them all, of course, and one of my friends quipped, "That's because Apple patented translucent colors."
Yeah, the more telling numbers are revenue figures, not stock jumps. Most day-traders I talk to regard Apple as a hideously bad short-term investment when in fact the company has billions in cash and continues to perform at or above expectations - the mark of a well-run corporation. Badly-run corporations will make unwise long-term decisions for a short-term jump in stock price. Witness the debacle that Enron became, and you can see the overemphasis placed on stock prices alone. The ticker doesn't tell the whole story.
I think Jobs has matured after his experience with NeXT and especially Pixar and knows how to treat his people. It's not fair to compare him to the CEO he was when he nearly ran Apple into the ground, as it is not fair to suggest Jobs alone should be credited with the success of the iMac or the torpedoing of failing ventures like Taligent and Copland. Jobs does well in identifying talent and has a good eye for design, like the recent Time magazine article about the birth of the iPod - when he gave its creator access to all of Apple's intellectual/engineering assets to help its development.
Other "cool" innovations - the PHP source for their page generation! With (omgzzss11!1one) AUTO-CENTERING OF TEXT!
Good thing their front page says they're developing "technologies that some people might find interesting. Maybe."
But they should've added, "...if they snicker at every obnoxious, grade-school dick joke" since that's apparently the theme they've chosen for this crap.
Fair enough, I just think there are appropriate times for audible cues, especially when skipping through commercials (eg, higher-pitched == faster) and such. Also, I tend to mash the remote control buttons a bit, so hearing a sound and knowing that the PVR's already received the "Enter" button-push event, and it's working on it, is better than mashing it again and causing something I hadn't intended to happen.
I don't really see where Sanger gets off calling it "anti-elitism" that the project doesn't let experts have the final word. I agree with him when he says "if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia." And this would probably produce a superior product - but not the one Sanger envisioned when he started the project, as he fully admits. No, this was not to be the be-all-end-all everything-to-everyone reference volume, it was first and foremost a community-oriented enterprise, and the (somewhat misplaced) loyalty to the community, even in the face of people who generally should know better, means the current maintainers' hearts are in the right place with regard to that goal.
So, "Anti-elitism"? No, it's "pro-community," and while I agree that it's out of place for mediating some rather silly disputes, the community-driven atmosphere has survived. Sanger is rightly second-guessing the community's ability to make Wikipedia a fully credible source, but while Wikipedia has been one of the internet/open source community's greatest achievements, it should also be allowed to highlight its limitations.
Slashdot Mirror
Or a paranoid, depressed android.
As someone who works exclusively with e-commerce support and has seen a number of clients' store data, the situation generally ranges from frustratingly bad to comic ineptitude.
Was troubleshooting a client's osCommerce store to see if we could encrypt and decrypt credit card numbers and return them securely. OSC has a MySQL backend, so to make this a bit easier, I suggested he install phpMyAdmin.
"Oh, don't worry," he said, "we've already got it installed at www.mywebsite.com/phpMyAdmin."
When I went to the page, phpMA had been installed in "config" security - ie, any master of reverse-engineering that could guess he might have a folder called "phpMyAdmin" could see ALL of his tables and had root privileges on his store database.
Stupid.
Most end-users know little about protecting data and are only now starting to wise up because credit card fraud is RAMPANT and the card companies are complaining (and actually enforcing some new protection standards). I believe Visa/MC will start requiring at least RSA encryption of credit card data if customer information is stored on a publicly-accessible server.
Then there was the guy whose entire site was a group of perl scripts and whose "Checkout" script handled credit card information by setting - guess what? - COOKIES, with the full cc# and personal data available to anyone who would read the client cookie. No cookie domain, just raw cookies with plain unencrypted data.
It's a mystery to me that more people aren't blatantly ripped off, but thankfully, commercial hosts seem to be reasonably knowledgable about this and are taking appropriate precautions.
Did everyone miss the rather scary, sexual connotation used by Ballmer while hyping the Xbox2?
It's going to blow by Sony.
Also from TFA: His voice escalated to a crescendo as the audience laughed and applauded. "I'm feeling a little frisky on this topic right now!" he added.
Whoa there, big boy. Though it did remind me of a good line from Family Guy:
Peter Griffin: Hey, where's my VCR?
Hillbilly #1: Dangit, Buck, I wanna use the sex box.
Hillbilly #2: It's *my* sex box. And her name is Sony.
WINE support was abandoned in favor of their own SWF implementation, and it's been that way for a while in the development releases. They're developing their own implementation because, yes, it makes things less portable and less stable.
Mono rocks, and the latest 1.1 branch has support for System.Windows.Forms, the only (that I know of, anyway) cross-platform implementation of the GUI calls from .NET - native calls made on Windows, GDI+ and Cairo for other platforms. Truly a godsend for developing cross-platform apps in C#.
I wish the Mono project and Miguel the best - they have done some excellent, excellent work and deserve to be commended.
Try KnoppMyth. Self-booting ISO, installs Debian and tries to auto-configure much off-the-shelf PVR hardware. Their forums are full of helpful advice and list specific hardware that's known to work without issue (and workarounds for things that aren't).
However, the rest of your post is sketchy at best
The rest of my post? Dude, you summed it up in the first line: "Yes, SoundJam was better than iTunes. And iTunes 1 was based on SoundJam."
I took issue with the Fortune interviewer apparently being fuckin' amazed that they could turn out something like iTunes 1 in four months. And my reply is, well, it wasn't very good. Later I clarified and said, "okay, it got better" - and being a Mac-head, I use it every day, even on my Windows PC at work. But that doesn't change the fact that they basically rushed into the music player software business with a half-baked product that frankly wasn't very impressive until it became the sole point of communication with their iPod the next year.
Jeff Robbins also worked at Apple at the time.
No, he left Apple when Jobs arrived to go work on SoundJam. They later hired him back, as the article says, because he'd impressed them before. Frankly I'd be impressed by a 28-year-old with an MBA and a successful software company, too.
By iTunes 2, Apple had reached feature parity with SoundJam (except for skins). Since then, iTunes has just gotten better and better.
A fact also revisited in my second post. And so what? Again, that doesn't change the fact that their initial release was pretty crappy. I'm glad it got better (and went cross-platform) but I was happy with SJMP and resented Apple for essentially killing it for their own inferior product at the time.
Wow, for someone trying to dispel FUD, you're sure dispensing an impressive amount of your own.
You can run PHP4 just fine on Apache 2. The problem is NOT, as you say, directly with PHP, but with the libraries that are typically linked/compiled in when building PHP (mcrypt, imap, mysql, etc) that are not multi-thread safe. PHP will have the same problems (though it will run just fine with the prefork MPM) until the module authors get the code cleaned up, or you'll end up building a barebones PHP interpreter.
The 1.3 series is multi-process, which doesn't work terribly well on Windows. Apache2 brings far better Windows support, but either should run just fine on a Linux machine. Use whichever you're more familiar with.
Wow, record time. Mods got an itchy trigger finger today?
Listen, the original iTunes was crap - I'm sorry. I'm a long-time Mac user and today's iTunes is worlds ahead of the original incarnation they put out.
Here's an old review. They didn't even add an equalizer (standard on MP) until the second release! Everything that makes the program useful today was lacking when they first released it. The only thing this had going for it was the fact that it was free - and, thankfully, that it got a lot better.
the development that went into the original iTunes (only four months!)
That couldn't be because they cannibalized another product and its development staff, and pretty much produced a half-baked "brushed steel" version of the same, now could it?
I remember the original iTunes, and I far preferred the product they'd based it on, Casady & Greene's SoundJam MP.
It's not a buffer overflow, it's poor use of the open command in perl and hideously bad security practice to allow that command's arguments to a) contain practically any arbitrary value, and furthermore b) be passed from any browser that can find the script location. But this is why we chroot jail CGI scripts and avoid stupid use of system calls.
Relax, they're all perfectly reasonable JPEGs now. 30-40kb is still a bit much for a black and white terminal screen grab, but, well, they're passable.
No, I don't agree. Why do you think they call it the "third rail" of politics? When you grow up in a society that promises you a windfall when you retire, you're damned cautious not to let anyone fuck with that guarantee. Granted, we may HAVE to now, but I certainly think more than senior citizens have a stake in SS reform.
Really? I'll submit that while it's a flawed system, the same can be said of many social programs, especially when we're trying to apply New Deal economics to today's markets.
But that doesn't mean it's time to do away with the whole thing. What I should've said was, if you oppose Bush's idea of SS reform, then, you're only playing politics - and this "with us or against us" administration certainly believes it has the clout to paint its opponents that way.
I don't see how you can have an option to take money out of a system that will already have a shortfall / be broke in 50 years, and somehow not come up in the red, even sooner than if we keep the current system and stop spending the cash set aside for it like it's a fucking money tree for Bush's wars.
Sorry, but I became much less interested in what Bush had to say after he wrapped up his social security segment. Two lines, in particular: ...we must pursue change with diligence, courage, and honesty
...our children's future is more important than partisan politics!
Translation: If you oppose SS reform, you are weak, a coward, and a liar.
Translation: If you oppose SS reform, you're playing politics, nothing more.
That was more than enough for me.
GP said:
Guess what, I'd take a guy with 10 years experience over a recent MBA any day of the week. However, want to bet that in 3 years the MBA w/ 3 years post-MBA experience has gained more than the guy with 13 years and no MBA?
So, more or less what you're saying. And I agree, as I'm not knocking *everyone* with an MBA, just the ones that've crossed me recently, who exhibit a very irritating sense of entitlement with regard to their shiny new degree.
I'd hope that's not par for the course, and in my reply to the OP, who'd said "you can't learn these things in the classroom," I'll agree again and again and again. I've not had the pleasure of working for a boss with an MBA, but I've worked under some extremely outstanding people, and I believe it would've been a much different experience had someone prematurely stuck them in charge of me (or anyone else) simply because of credentials.
Look, I'm not knocking everyone with an MBA; I'm in a night program myself trying to get one. I worked my way there, so maybe I'm a bit bitter about the ones that aren't willing to take an entry-level position. It's a stepping stone, and you're right, there are some fundamentals that are taught that are hugely insightful in business operations.
I'm knocking the guys that think it's a key to the magical kingdom of management, the ones with a chip on their shoulder that presume to step in at any level and take the helm because they've got a piece of paper. I don't want a business genius, I want someone who will push their ego aside and WORK, and we can chat about operational theory over cigars and brandy in our off hours.
I disagree that someone with an MBA will advance more rapidly than someone with a decade of experience, and much can be gleaned from that kind of time if it's spent in increasingly responsible positions with a solid work history. Advancement isn't everything, and when you put in the time, you gain perspective. I'd rather the kid come to me a bit more humble than the ones I've seen. I'm biased, of course, but I'm much more impressed seeing solid employment history while acquiring that MBA, rather than someone who's looking to turn my business into a case study from their Economics textbook.
Honestly, I don't think it's the sort of thing you can learn in a course either.
Huzzah, thank you thank you thank you. Please repeat ad infinitum to all the MBAs who've come knocking on our door recently expecting to be appointed the VP the moment they're hired.
Experience is what truly moves you up in business, even moreso in IT. MBAs are a dime a dozen, and the fact that you can throw around terms like "demand elasticity" doesn't impress me as much as someone who's had to work as part of a team (better yet, lead a team) to get a product shipped on-time and well-tested.
cell phone companies will do anything short of offering you a blowjob to get you into a contract with a monthly fee (most of them lasting no less than a year)
Ahh, the elusive year-long blowjob...
It's mentioned in the docs - root access is not a requirement unless you want to create, say, a virtual host to run it from (like bugs.mysite.com instead of mysite.com/~username/bugs) or need to install additional perl packages. That is really the most difficult part of the setup. The files can reside anywhere and will be served up provided you have perl set up as the interpreter for .cgi files and have the proper perl packages, as well as a mysql database (not necessarily root on the db server). It may require some intervention from the sys admin, but you by no means have to be one. You can even substitute IIS if you want to. Most of the hurdles are cosmetic ones.
How would you call the iMac, power mac, $ANY mac a successes?
I'd call it a success as the Rev-A iMacs practically saved the company. Sure it's not "futuristic" or "stylish" by today's standards, but in 1998 it was every bit the smash hit it deserved to be. While other computer makers tried to make the PC appealing to a wider audience, gain adoption for USB, and attract users who had never touched a computer before, Apple succeeded in all three with the iMac, no question.
Remember that the "i" supposedly stood for "internet", and that this was the internet-enabled computer for the masses, with a 56K modem and built-in ethernet. Reviewers at the time raved at its simple, one-enclosure-for-everything design. I remember reading one of those "end-user" reviews where a chick groaned when opening a brand-new Dell, because, "3 boxes, this is already more complicated."
Apple tends to get the details right and knows satisfied customers are willing to pay a premium and keep coming back. It helped them that they set a bit of a fashion trend along the way. There were quite a few imitators that made Wintel iMac-alikes because the things just sold. I'd say imitation is a high indicator of success, as well. Apple sued them all, of course, and one of my friends quipped, "That's because Apple patented translucent colors."
Yeah, the more telling numbers are revenue figures, not stock jumps. Most day-traders I talk to regard Apple as a hideously bad short-term investment when in fact the company has billions in cash and continues to perform at or above expectations - the mark of a well-run corporation. Badly-run corporations will make unwise long-term decisions for a short-term jump in stock price. Witness the debacle that Enron became, and you can see the overemphasis placed on stock prices alone. The ticker doesn't tell the whole story.
I think Jobs has matured after his experience with NeXT and especially Pixar and knows how to treat his people. It's not fair to compare him to the CEO he was when he nearly ran Apple into the ground, as it is not fair to suggest Jobs alone should be credited with the success of the iMac or the torpedoing of failing ventures like Taligent and Copland. Jobs does well in identifying talent and has a good eye for design, like the recent Time magazine article about the birth of the iPod - when he gave its creator access to all of Apple's intellectual/engineering assets to help its development.
Have you seen the name of their products?
Here's a packet sniffer called Assniffer.
Other "cool" innovations - the PHP source for their page generation! With (omgzzss11!1one) AUTO-CENTERING OF TEXT!
Good thing their front page says they're developing "technologies that some people might find interesting. Maybe."
But they should've added, "...if they snicker at every obnoxious, grade-school dick joke" since that's apparently the theme they've chosen for this crap.
Fair enough, I just think there are appropriate times for audible cues, especially when skipping through commercials (eg, higher-pitched == faster) and such. Also, I tend to mash the remote control buttons a bit, so hearing a sound and knowing that the PVR's already received the "Enter" button-push event, and it's working on it, is better than mashing it again and causing something I hadn't intended to happen.
I don't really see where Sanger gets off calling it "anti-elitism" that the project doesn't let experts have the final word. I agree with him when he says "if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia." And this would probably produce a superior product - but not the one Sanger envisioned when he started the project, as he fully admits. No, this was not to be the be-all-end-all everything-to-everyone reference volume, it was first and foremost a community-oriented enterprise, and the (somewhat misplaced) loyalty to the community, even in the face of people who generally should know better, means the current maintainers' hearts are in the right place with regard to that goal.
So, "Anti-elitism"? No, it's "pro-community," and while I agree that it's out of place for mediating some rather silly disputes, the community-driven atmosphere has survived. Sanger is rightly second-guessing the community's ability to make Wikipedia a fully credible source, but while Wikipedia has been one of the internet/open source community's greatest achievements, it should also be allowed to highlight its limitations.