Anyway, after noticing the cell phone accesses, I went looking to see if there was anything I needed to know or do different (I was hoping NOT) and if it was going to be worth it. I didn't find any information at all (regarding anything notable needed for cell phone access) when searching at google
The trick is to look for "mobile" or "handheld" (which is the relevant CSS media) not "cell phone." Some useful references on this topic include Making Small Devices Look Great at Dev.Opera and Pocket-sized Design at A List Apart.
Opera conveniently makes it easy to test Opera Mini (their Java-based browser for cell phones): There's a live demo which just embeds it as an applet. Unfortunately, the last time I went looking I couldn't find much in the way of resources for testing other phones' browsers.
Why don't we make cell phones fit to display websites as they are?
Because it's hard to fit a 10-inch screen on a cell phone and still carry it in your pocket.
Even when the base cell phone reaches the point that it can handle all the scripting, plugin content, etc. that the major desktop browsers can handle, it'll still have a smaller screen size. Most sites are designed for 8 inches or wider (800 pixels at 96 dots per inch). So to get a usable view of the site, either a cell phone browser has to adjust the page to fit (like Opera's small-screen rendering), or the page has to take into account the small screen size (like a handheld-focused stylesheet).
I recall hearing something about projection interfaces that would project a full-sized screen on a nearby surface, but I'm not sure how practical that would be while surfing the web on an escalator.
When I saw the summary, I was half-certain it had to be a delayed April 1 submission. Then I looked at the article. And thought about it.
It actually fits a pattern we've seen with viruses, trojans, spyware, other malware, cracking, even spam. They've gone from small shops, often one programmer trying to make a name for himself, to full-on organized crime using businesslike structures and tactics.
They're even filing patent lawsuits now! And I thought this post that Firefox was no longer alternative enough to be an "alternative browser" was taking things too far.
Ok, so 6% do not believe in God, "People who don't believe in God are called atheists", and only 3% are willing to say they are atheist. WTF is up with the other 3% who do not believe in God?
IIRC, the article brought that up. They figured that there's still a social stigma attached to the term atheist, and those 3% might be willing to admit to not believing, but not willing to accept the label. It could also include people who have religious beliefs that aren't focused on a discrete supreme being, in which case atheist might be technically correct (i.e. someone doesn't believe in any sort of god), but wrong in connotation, since atheist is usually interpreted to mean that one has no religious beliefs whatsoever.
On a related note, NPR has a long-running series called "This, I Believe," in which people (some famous, some not) submit brief essays about some belief (religious, philosophical, or otherwise) and, if selected, read their essay on the air. Penn Gillette (of Penn & Teller) spoke about not just being an atheist -- atheists just don't believe in God -- but going beyond atheism, and specifically believing that there is no God. It's a subtle difference, but his view on it is that this is our only shot, so you'd better do things right in this life, because you don't get another chance to fix it after you die.
Anyone seen the show Coupling? (The original UK version, not the watered-down show they tried to do here in the US.) A scene comes to mind in which Jeff meets a woman he once tried to ask out over the phone, but her ex showed up while he was on the phone with her, and they started getting... shall we say, frisky. The exchange went something like this:
America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry.
But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?
Note: I'm referring specifically to the 48% who believe that evolution is not well-supported by scientific evidence and that it is not widely accepted within the scientific community. Well, and the people who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You can believe in God and have an understanding of science, just like you can have morals without being religious. But thinking that evolution isn't supported by evidence, or isn't widely accepted by scientists, is just plain ignorance.
And if those stations only get 13% of their funding from CPB, as stated, that means at maximum NPR gets 15% of its money from CPB, directly or through member stations' dues. Less, actually -- according to the 2005 NPR Annual Report (it's a PDF on the link cited in my previous post), 39% of NPR's revenue for that year came from station programming fees.
So that's 13% of 39%, or 5.1% of the total. Factor in the 6% of stations' funding that comes from state and local governments -- again that's 6% of that 39% -- and we have another 2.3%.
So, 1-2% directly from the feds -- let's go with 2% for the sake of argument. Plus 5.1% from the feds via member stations. Plus 2.3% from state and local via member stations. That's just 9.4%, directly and indirectly.
If NPR were "government funded political propaganda," wouldn't you expect it to be more positive in its portrayal of the government and government policies?
NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from over 800 independent radio stations, sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts. (emphasis added)
As for the stations themselves:
On average, public radio stations (including NPR Member stations) receive the largest percentage of their revenue (34%) from listener support, 24% from corporate underwriting and foundations, and 13% from CPB allocations.
National Public Radio is public in the sense of being a public service, not in the sense of being primarily funded by tax dollars.
So here we are, once again, with Locke's ideal of a sound mind in a sound body.
The challenge for computer geeks: finding a way to merge exercise with mostly-sedentary hobbies and jobs. Perhaps it's a job for mobile computing: Set a tablet PC in front of a treadmill, and read Slashdot while running?
Does this strike anyone else as kind of ridiculous?
No, since they actually invented it. If someone else had invented it, then gone out of business, and they'd bought up the patent and made tons of money on it, then it would be ridiculous.
I've done a number of upgrades from various Red Hat and Fedora versions to later ones. In general, upgrades from the CD went more smoothly than those where I attempted to use yum. There was also one memorable case back in the RHL days, when I manually upgraded a live system using just rpm on the command-line. It was hairy, but at least the system was only down for the length of a reboot.
I have seen it recommended to only jump one version at a time, which would mean upgrading a Fedora 4 system first to Fedora 5, then to Fedora 6.
The "download archive" page (which lists every public release since WordPress branched from B2) provides MD5 hashes, but they're not linked or listed from the main download page for some reason. It's also not made clear on the page whether the MD5 hash is of the ZIP archive or the tar.gz archive.
So while the hash is there, probably only 1% of downloaders would even see that it exists.
It only confirms that your copy of the initial release was unaffected. Someone could have come along right after your download and pipped things so that anyone in line right after you received the dirty diaper.
Good point. In this case, the WP folks seem certain it was compromised within the last four days, but you're right, my data point doesn't confirm anything later than whatever time of day it was on Feb. 21.
What I was trying to say was that what I've seen is at least consistent with the timeline that Matt presented. I guess I took the logic a bit too far.
Everyone should update - it's the only safe and practical response, rather than chancing things on an 'if'.
True. The effort to upgrade is a lot less than the risk of having missed something. For the record, I upgraded to 2.1.2 immediately, even after verifying my copy. I just felt a lot calmer about the process.
From the article, and from some comparisons I did on the downloads:
The attacker only altered the released files on the download server, not the Subversion repository. (TFA)
Only the 2.1.1 release was altered. Older versions, such as 2.0, don't seem to have been affected. (TFA)
If you downloaded 2.1.1 when it was first released, it's probably okay. If you grabbed it in the last four days, you're probably compromised. Upgrade NOW. (TFA, verified with diff)
I still had the tar archive of 2.1.1 from when I grabbed it the day of the release, so I compared its contents to the 2.1.2 archive. The two files mentioned in the announcement, feed.php and theme.php, aren't any different, confirming that the initial release was unaffected. That's also where I saw the changes for that XSS bug.
To me, this indicates that people who use AOL to search do not know the difference between a search box and a URL bar.
Semi-off-topic, but there do seem to be an awful lot of people who get input fields mixed up. I run a comic book fan site that profiles characters connected to the Flash. The character has been around since 1940, so there are a lot of villains, supporting characters and guest stars to add. I've tried to make finding specific characters as easy as possible for multiple styles of navigation and search.
A bit over a year ago, I added a suggestion box to the home page. One of the odd things I found was that people were seemingly requesting that I add profiles for characters who were already on the site. After a while, I realized that people were seeing the suggestion box and treating it as a search box -- despite the fact that there was a search box in the sidebar on every page.
In response, I made two changes: First, I changed the "Thanks for your suggestion!" page to incorporate any hits from the site search on the terms entered. Eventually, I redesigned the site layout to make the search field more noticeable.
Sure, it's not guaranteed accurate. In fact, the article actually mentions this caveat in the next paragraph:
In many cases, the situation is probably more complicated than that; one assumes, for example, that a certain kernel hacker's employer has not directed him to hack on Battle for Wesnoth. When looking only at kernel code, however, crediting all work to the employer is probably relatively safe.
Hey, back in my day, domain names cost $100 to register! You durn kids don't know when you've got it made!
Seriously. Network Solutions used to have a monopoly. You had to spend ~$100 to get a domain name. When I picked up my first domain name, it had dropped to $35/year, but you had to order two years to start, making it effectively $70. Now, everyone and his brother is a domain registrar, and you can pick up a domain name for $9.99 easily. Often less if you find the right deal.
Compared to what the domain name system was like in 1999, what we have today is a free market.
Slashdot Mirror
The trick is to look for "mobile" or "handheld" (which is the relevant CSS media) not "cell phone." Some useful references on this topic include Making Small Devices Look Great at Dev.Opera and Pocket-sized Design at A List Apart.
Opera conveniently makes it easy to test Opera Mini (their Java-based browser for cell phones): There's a live demo which just embeds it as an applet. Unfortunately, the last time I went looking I couldn't find much in the way of resources for testing other phones' browsers.
Because it's hard to fit a 10-inch screen on a cell phone and still carry it in your pocket.
Even when the base cell phone reaches the point that it can handle all the scripting, plugin content, etc. that the major desktop browsers can handle, it'll still have a smaller screen size. Most sites are designed for 8 inches or wider (800 pixels at 96 dots per inch). So to get a usable view of the site, either a cell phone browser has to adjust the page to fit (like Opera's small-screen rendering), or the page has to take into account the small screen size (like a handheld-focused stylesheet).
I recall hearing something about projection interfaces that would project a full-sized screen on a nearby surface, but I'm not sure how practical that would be while surfing the web on an escalator.
When I saw the summary, I was half-certain it had to be a delayed April 1 submission. Then I looked at the article. And thought about it.
It actually fits a pattern we've seen with viruses, trojans, spyware, other malware, cracking, even spam. They've gone from small shops, often one programmer trying to make a name for himself, to full-on organized crime using businesslike structures and tactics.
I read the headline and thought that Wilhelms were going on sale -- and I wanted my own copy of the famous sound effect!
...for people who don't have photo printers.
They're even filing patent lawsuits now! And I thought this post that Firefox was no longer alternative enough to be an "alternative browser" was taking things too far.
Well, not yet. Wait until the echo chamber that is the Internet gets into full swing...
IIRC, the article brought that up. They figured that there's still a social stigma attached to the term atheist, and those 3% might be willing to admit to not believing, but not willing to accept the label. It could also include people who have religious beliefs that aren't focused on a discrete supreme being, in which case atheist might be technically correct (i.e. someone doesn't believe in any sort of god), but wrong in connotation, since atheist is usually interpreted to mean that one has no religious beliefs whatsoever.
On a related note, NPR has a long-running series called "This, I Believe," in which people (some famous, some not) submit brief essays about some belief (religious, philosophical, or otherwise) and, if selected, read their essay on the air. Penn Gillette (of Penn & Teller) spoke about not just being an atheist -- atheists just don't believe in God -- but going beyond atheism, and specifically believing that there is no God. It's a subtle difference, but his view on it is that this is our only shot, so you'd better do things right in this life, because you don't get another chance to fix it after you die.
The ability to send an electrical shock to the author of any Slashdot comment by modding the post down as Troll or Flamebait.
Anyone seen the show Coupling? (The original UK version, not the watered-down show they tried to do here in the US.) A scene comes to mind in which Jeff meets a woman he once tried to ask out over the phone, but her ex showed up while he was on the phone with her, and they started getting... shall we say, frisky. The exchange went something like this:
"I don't think anyone had ever phoned me before"
"Well, I'm sure lots of blokes..."
"No, I mean no one had phoned me before."
You have to click through a few links to get to it, but the actual poll states:
It looks like the submitter got mixed up with the two stats that were both 48%.
Disclaimer: This quote has been modified from the original version. It has been reformatted to fit within Slashdot's HTML limits.
America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry.
But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?
Note: I'm referring specifically to the 48% who believe that evolution is not well-supported by scientific evidence and that it is not widely accepted within the scientific community. Well, and the people who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You can believe in God and have an understanding of science, just like you can have morals without being religious. But thinking that evolution isn't supported by evidence, or isn't widely accepted by scientists, is just plain ignorance.
And if those stations only get 13% of their funding from CPB, as stated, that means at maximum NPR gets 15% of its money from CPB, directly or through member stations' dues. Less, actually -- according to the 2005 NPR Annual Report (it's a PDF on the link cited in my previous post), 39% of NPR's revenue for that year came from station programming fees.
So that's 13% of 39%, or 5.1% of the total. Factor in the 6% of stations' funding that comes from state and local governments -- again that's 6% of that 39% -- and we have another 2.3%.
So, 1-2% directly from the feds -- let's go with 2% for the sake of argument. Plus 5.1% from the feds via member stations. Plus 2.3% from state and local via member stations. That's just 9.4%, directly and indirectly.
Are you saying 90% doesn't qualify as "most"?
If NPR were "government funded political propaganda," wouldn't you expect it to be more positive in its portrayal of the government and government policies?
Actually, NPR doesn't get much public money:
As for the stations themselves:
National Public Radio is public in the sense of being a public service, not in the sense of being primarily funded by tax dollars.
So here we are, once again, with Locke's ideal of a sound mind in a sound body.
The challenge for computer geeks: finding a way to merge exercise with mostly-sedentary hobbies and jobs. Perhaps it's a job for mobile computing: Set a tablet PC in front of a treadmill, and read Slashdot while running?
Similarly, I was wondering how this theory accounts for water intoxication.
No, since they actually invented it. If someone else had invented it, then gone out of business, and they'd bought up the patent and made tons of money on it, then it would be ridiculous.
I've done a number of upgrades from various Red Hat and Fedora versions to later ones. In general, upgrades from the CD went more smoothly than those where I attempted to use yum. There was also one memorable case back in the RHL days, when I manually upgraded a live system using just rpm on the command-line. It was hairy, but at least the system was only down for the length of a reboot.
I have seen it recommended to only jump one version at a time, which would mean upgrading a Fedora 4 system first to Fedora 5, then to Fedora 6.
The "download archive" page (which lists every public release since WordPress branched from B2) provides MD5 hashes, but they're not linked or listed from the main download page for some reason. It's also not made clear on the page whether the MD5 hash is of the ZIP archive or the tar.gz archive.
So while the hash is there, probably only 1% of downloaders would even see that it exists.
Good point. In this case, the WP folks seem certain it was compromised within the last four days, but you're right, my data point doesn't confirm anything later than whatever time of day it was on Feb. 21.
What I was trying to say was that what I've seen is at least consistent with the timeline that Matt presented. I guess I took the logic a bit too far.
True. The effort to upgrade is a lot less than the risk of having missed something. For the record, I upgraded to 2.1.2 immediately, even after verifying my copy. I just felt a lot calmer about the process.
From the article, and from some comparisons I did on the downloads:
I still had the tar archive of 2.1.1 from when I grabbed it the day of the release, so I compared its contents to the 2.1.2 archive. The two files mentioned in the announcement, feed.php and theme.php, aren't any different, confirming that the initial release was unaffected. That's also where I saw the changes for that XSS bug.
Semi-off-topic, but there do seem to be an awful lot of people who get input fields mixed up. I run a comic book fan site that profiles characters connected to the Flash. The character has been around since 1940, so there are a lot of villains, supporting characters and guest stars to add. I've tried to make finding specific characters as easy as possible for multiple styles of navigation and search.
A bit over a year ago, I added a suggestion box to the home page. One of the odd things I found was that people were seemingly requesting that I add profiles for characters who were already on the site. After a while, I realized that people were seeing the suggestion box and treating it as a search box -- despite the fact that there was a search box in the sidebar on every page.
In response, I made two changes: First, I changed the "Thanks for your suggestion!" page to incorporate any hits from the site search on the terms entered. Eventually, I redesigned the site layout to make the search field more noticeable.
Sure, it's not guaranteed accurate. In fact, the article actually mentions this caveat in the next paragraph:
Hey, back in my day, domain names cost $100 to register! You durn kids don't know when you've got it made!
Seriously. Network Solutions used to have a monopoly. You had to spend ~$100 to get a domain name. When I picked up my first domain name, it had dropped to $35/year, but you had to order two years to start, making it effectively $70. Now, everyone and his brother is a domain registrar, and you can pick up a domain name for $9.99 easily. Often less if you find the right deal.
Compared to what the domain name system was like in 1999, what we have today is a free market.