The patches are actually to WebKit, which is the actual GUI component that renders the HTML. Both browsers (Safari and Safari RSS) actually use the same rendering component IIRC. As does any other of the zillion of apps on the system that embeds the webkit framework to render HTML.
Of course, the actual changes are in neither version yet. They're still in the development version. We'll have to wait for some apple updates to see the changes.
Me? I'm more interested as a programmer in getting the documentation for the cool new features in the latest version of WekKit that's just been released (and described further down in the blog.)
Dude, the thing about this internet thing is that it's international. Hell, it's not like even all the states has 2am at the same time. Stating a time without a timezone is particularly useless.
Hell, it's not even like in the UK we had a 2am last night. My clock went straight from 1.59am GMT to 3am BST
Someone who accomplishes something important at great risk to his own life is a hero, not someone who plods along for years at a job no matter how important his contributions.
So what you're saying is, someone who is willing to (potentially) give up their life is heroic, but someone who is prepared to dedicate their life to a goal is not? That someone who gambles their life, knowing that they may or may not be successful and return to a 'normal' life is more heroic than someone who instead knowingly commits to spending the rest of their life, year after year, trying to achieve something?
The reality is that almost no other commercial software vendor will provide you with updates if you aren't current on maintenance
The obvious exception to this of course is Apple, who don't require any kind of contract to update their O.S.
Of course, there's a strong argument that Apple aren't primarily a commercial software vendor (they're a hardware vendor that support sales through their software business.)
Redhat and other commercial Linux distributers tend not to require a support contract. But that's a whole different ball park too...
"stating the naute of the relationship of that link"
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You're stating the nature of the link in relation to the current page. The relationship is one that you shouldn't follow automatically with a search engine (just like "next" might be a page you pre-cache or something)
Yes, that's fine, but if I search something I do not go through a bunch of blogs, I use google, and that will not work any more.
No, you misunderstand. If something is popular enough blog authors will talk about it in posts (not blog commentators) and those links still will be counted - meaning you still will be able to access that stuff via google.
See, you still have to edit posts manually. Isn't it better then if you remove the spam manually?
The reason that comment spammers spam is because search engines often hit a page before the user can delete the comment. This way there's no incentive for the spammers - their stuff will *never* be approved. Which should stop them spamming.
You're right though, you do have to manually edit your site. Or do you? One way this scheme could be used is in conjunction with "flag this comment/update as spam" buttons you have on modern blogs or wikis that traditionally alert the site's author to a problem. With this system as soon as a page is marked as dubious all the links could be set not to be followed by the search engine...a step between totally removing the comment and leaving it in place.
That's not the way the advertising industry works. They can't compare page views to banner views.
Remember, the HTML of a page is served from the "media owners" site, and the GIF/FLASH whatever is served from the advertising agency's . If a user is told to download an ad, but doesn't (because they have some form of adblock installed) then the advertising company never even sees the user.
Sure, someone else could work this out (the media owners for example) but not the advertising agency.
You don't need to escape "'" inside double quotes with backslashes...Also:
keys {%Shakespeare}
won't work. {%Shakespeare} creates a reference to an anonymous hash from whatever was in %Shakespeare. And you can't call keys on a reference. I don't think you want the {... } around it. Also:
%shakespeare{$monkeys} = $It;
Firstly, that's assignment not numerical equality (that's ==). Secondly, you probably want to check for string equality, not numerical equality (use eq). Finally, if you want compare single entries into the hash (and you do) then you want to use $hash{thing} not %hash{thing}
Let's just rewrite it.
foreach my $monkey (keys {%Shakespeare}) { print "You've got Shakespeare" if $Shakespeare{$monkey} eq $It; }
Even better is using something like rdiff-backup. This works the same as rsync (more or less) but creates reverse patches with the previous backup. So what you essentially end up with is a complete copy of the latest backup hard drive which you can use however you want (just like rsync), plus a collection of patch files that every time you apply them reverts that hard drive to the previous backup, then the backup before that, then the backup before that, and so on and so on.
Useful for when you realise three backups down the line that you've corrupted a file and you want it back.
So in the US it would be legal for someone to go around saying that a respected businessman whilst he was alone working late in the office went though all his colleagues desks and stole all their secret plans? Even though he couldn't possibly prove he didn't (after all, no one else was there), and saying that might have a detrimental effect on his career? Or to put it another way, it's okay to say something about someone if they had the opportunity to do that thing and can't prove that they didn't?
In the UK if you accuse someone of something in a way that could have harmful sideffects for them then that's slander/libel unless you can back up your accusations. Is this not true in the US?
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove what they wrote was true, but obviously this only happens after the plaintiff has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed write what they are accused of writing.
This is obvious. If someone libels me by writing that I committed a crime, then I don't have to prove that I didn't commit that crime in order to sue them - before they throw around accusations like that they have to be able to prove what they said (or I'd be considered guilty until proven innocent.)
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it that's "fair comment" - at least under my (UK) law anyway. By that I don't mean that I agree with you, I mean that saying that is fine (as it's an opinion and could only be said as.)
For example, you could say that CmdrTaco does a crap job at running slashdot (that's fair comment, some people might agree, other's might not) but saying that he's crap because he's never had any computer training would be libel (after all, he majored in computer science.) In short, you're stating a fact that isn't true. Like saying someone robbed graves when they did not.
In short, you can mouth off, but if you say something that isn't true....well, google is always watching.
Slashdot Mirror
In the last slashdot article on OpenRAW
On BBC1 every saturday night slap bang in the middle of prime time viewing?
Didn't they already have Alien (species 8472) verses the Preditor (Hirogen) verses the Borg in Voyager?
The patches are actually to WebKit, which is the actual GUI component that renders the HTML. Both browsers (Safari and Safari RSS) actually use the same rendering component IIRC. As does any other of the zillion of apps on the system that embeds the webkit framework to render HTML.
Of course, the actual changes are in neither version yet. They're still in the development version. We'll have to wait for some apple updates to see the changes.
Me? I'm more interested as a programmer in getting the documentation for the cool new features in the latest version of WekKit that's just been released (and described further down in the blog.)
They're charging 0.99ukp (about 1.88usd) per song, which isn't really significantly cheaper than physical media.
Hell, it's not even like in the UK we had a 2am last night. My clock went straight from 1.59am GMT to 3am BST
You might want to post one question per comment, so they can be properly moderated.
Don't you mean "city centres?"
That link's broken. I thnk you meant this: http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-17287
So I assume the american site has 8% sales tax included.
Of course, there's a strong argument that Apple aren't primarily a commercial software vendor (they're a hardware vendor that support sales through their software business.)
Redhat and other commercial Linux distributers tend not to require a support contract. But that's a whole different ball park too...
You're right though, you do have to manually edit your site. Or do you? One way this scheme could be used is in conjunction with "flag this comment/update as spam" buttons you have on modern blogs or wikis that traditionally alert the site's author to a problem. With this system as soon as a page is marked as dubious all the links could be set not to be followed by the search engine...a step between totally removing the comment and leaving it in place.
Whatever next? Miles O'Brien turning up in a reoccurring role? Odo being the leader of a distant planet?
Remember, the HTML of a page is served from the "media owners" site, and the GIF/FLASH whatever is served from the advertising agency's . If a user is told to download an ad, but doesn't (because they have some form of adblock installed) then the advertising company never even sees the user.
Sure, someone else could work this out (the media owners for example) but not the advertising agency.
Let's just rewrite it.
See...things do get better with each edit.
Even better is using something like rdiff-backup. This works the same as rsync (more or less) but creates reverse patches with the previous backup. So what you essentially end up with is a complete copy of the latest backup hard drive which you can use however you want (just like rsync), plus a collection of patch files that every time you apply them reverts that hard drive to the previous backup, then the backup before that, then the backup before that, and so on and so on.
Useful for when you realise three backups down the line that you've corrupted a file and you want it back.
In the UK if you accuse someone of something in a way that could have harmful sideffects for them then that's slander/libel unless you can back up your accusations. Is this not true in the US?
The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove what they wrote was true, but obviously this only happens after the plaintiff has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed write what they are accused of writing.
This is obvious. If someone libels me by writing that I committed a crime, then I don't have to prove that I didn't commit that crime in order to sue them - before they throw around accusations like that they have to be able to prove what they said (or I'd be considered guilty until proven innocent.)
For example, you could say that CmdrTaco does a crap job at running slashdot (that's fair comment, some people might agree, other's might not) but saying that he's crap because he's never had any computer training would be libel (after all, he majored in computer science.) In short, you're stating a fact that isn't true. Like saying someone robbed graves when they did not.
In short, you can mouth off, but if you say something that isn't true....well, google is always watching.
(I can't believe someone had to say "stop spending all your time building sheep and get back to making a 3d printer" to them)
Here's a couple of more recent pictures that I found on my digital camera. You can see the whole printer (with chocolate) printing in these shots.