You're stuck on ads -- there are other uses for pop-ups than ads.
You have chosen to censor those out. I can't see how you can argue for one (censoring popups), and against the other (censoring DVDs), censorship is censorship.
If your point is that we are just as at risk if the goverment were in charge as if it were the corporations, I will not disagree in theory, but I will disagree in practice.
But it's all a red herring, anyway - as long as algorithm choice exists, everybody can be happy.
Perhaps in many cases the other 3 do remove an entire "work" - e.g., an ad.
But that isn't always going to be the case. Some sites used to have popups when you'd visit: "Welcome to our site! Blah Blah Blah!".
Now those sites no longer have that option - artists have had their hands tied, because users have been bowderlising their content.
And television shows are designed to be watched, with the commercials in mind - ever notice how an hour-long show has little cliffhangers every 15 minutes, right before a commercial?
If you skip the commercials, you're bowderlising the dramatic pacing of the show.
Killfiles. Pop-up blockers. Auto-editing DVD players. Commerical-skip button on TiVo.
Seems to me all 4 of these do basically the same thing, pre-edit something so the user doesn't have to see something they know they won't want to.
If you object to this Auto-Censoring DVD player, then shouldn't you also object to the other 3 things above? The user is bowderlising the content someone else provided, without their permission.
Art? Art? What is Art? One person's art is another's annoying popup.
I'm arguing that content providers (whether they be "artists" making a movie, or web authors making a web page) are equivalent. And that views of the content have the right to filter it however they want.
As long as there's free market (i.e., the goverment is not the one doing this) we are free to choose which algorithm for automatic editing we want. RCA puts out one that changes the meaning too much, I'll go get one from Sony that works differently.
I bought/rented the DVD. I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including automatically skip the stuff I don't want to see.
Re:i don't care what you want, it's still wrong.
on
Auto-Censoring DVD Player
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
your right in that it's a win for Google, and a Win for the web surfer, after all, it CAN show pop-up ads; you have the option.
but you only covered the web browser and the person browsing with it. The content providers should also have a say in if they want the art that they put together piece by piece ripped apart by some lame google pop-up blocker.
what if the entire web site lays on the popup where some critical piece of info is? guess you won't be surfin' to that website.
it's harmfull unless both the users and the content providers have the ability to circumvent it.
life is harsh, people say naughty things, and do naughty acts, the sooner we get over it, the better. look how dogs shake hands
We've been using it for about 6 months, and so far only the last sprint (right before the launch) turned into a death march, and even that wasn't too bad (compared to other places I've worked). During the other 5 sprints most of us worked just regular hours.
Scrum, I think, can succeed if the team had good chemistry. If egos or personalities conflict, then I can easily see some of the problems in the article arising -- little refactoring occurs, little code fiefdoms arise, etc. But in our team this has not occurred.
For example, a large refactoring ended up being a placed into the sprint backlog during one of the sprint planning meetings. The product owner was willing to accept this 60-hour item, because we insisted on it. If the product owner doesn't accept these arguments from development, or doesn't have a good communicative relationship with the team... sure more features could have been added but the code quality would have suffered. The product owner must understand this.
So, if the team is has a good working chemistry (including, maybe especially, the product owner), then scrum seems to work. I would not be surprised if it failed if this were not the case.
Yikes! It appears my knowledge on this is a little out-of-date. You can load balance and still use session variables.
However, many guides do advise against using session variables, though not because of the load-balancing issues anymore. A quick search turns up one here. (I think this one is ASP-specific, though.)
Another correction to my posting: since sessionIDs are generally stored in a cookie, users will still have to have cookies enabled if you're going to use session variables.
With PHP session storage is file-based so you could share the same session directory between multiple servers.
Hmmm, file-based session variables might work, but it seems like it would really slow things down. The reason to use load-balancing is to speed things up.
But I'll admit I have never tried it personally.
Cookies lasting longer that sessions is Ok if you're the only one using the client computer but in settings like a public Internet facility you don't want that sort of stuff.
Most sites that do store persistent cookies will advise that you "log out" when you're done. But you're right, that is another disadvantage of cookies that I didn't list.
Storing only the username in a cookie is VERY dangerous! This way an attacker could forge a cookie with only a username and gain access
This is possible, sure. I was thinking of sites like Slashdot where the reward for such forgery would be minimal.
The problem I had in mind was that people use the same passwords on many different sites, so while forging someone's slashdot account is not a huge deal, stealing their slashdot password might be.
I've never heard of any web development guides which recommend against using session variables. Please point me to them, I'm very interested.
I don't know of any on-line guides that are relevant here (large-site design). The MCSD+I training materials do make this recommendation, if you put any stock in that. (I'm not an MCSD (thank God), but the guy across the hall is.)
One reason you can't do that is if your site ever gets really big (like Slashdot), you can't load-balance over multiple servers.
Also, cookies can last longer than sessions, so your site can recognize somebody the next time they visit.
And, if you use cookies you don't really need to store the password in the cookie -- just the username. Keep the password in your database on the server. So, there isn't any additional security risk -- the only downside is that your users might have disabled cookies.
Most web development guides recommend against using session variables.
As has been pointed out 800 other times here, 0 is most definitely an even number. An even number is by definition a number which can be expressed in the form 2*n, where n is an integer. You can do that with 0.
At crystal.linuxgames.com there is a very good open-source 3D gaming engine. It is quite far along. Looks like this discussion ended a long time ago, though.
Slashdot Mirror
More info is available here.
Goonight! Ownage!
No. You've switched from arguing principle to arguing probability.
"It is okay to censor popups since most of the time they are ads and I'm not interested"
"It is okay to bleep the f-word out of a DVD I rented, since most of the time it just annoys me."
Sounds like the same argument to me.
You're stuck on ads -- there are other uses for pop-ups than ads.
You have chosen to censor those out. I can't see how you can argue for one (censoring popups), and against the other (censoring DVDs), censorship is censorship.
If your point is that we are just as at risk if the goverment were in charge as if it were the corporations, I will not disagree in theory, but I will disagree in practice.
But it's all a red herring, anyway - as long as algorithm choice exists, everybody can be happy.
Perhaps in many cases the other 3 do remove an entire "work" - e.g., an ad.
But that isn't always going to be the case. Some sites used to have popups when you'd visit: "Welcome to our site! Blah Blah Blah!".
Now those sites no longer have that option - artists have had their hands tied, because users have been bowderlising their content.
And television shows are designed to be watched, with the commercials in mind - ever notice how an hour-long show has little cliffhangers every 15 minutes, right before a commercial?
If you skip the commercials, you're bowderlising the dramatic pacing of the show.
Killfiles.
Pop-up blockers.
Auto-editing DVD players.
Commerical-skip button on TiVo.
Seems to me all 4 of these do basically the same thing, pre-edit something so the user doesn't have to see something they know they won't want to.
If you object to this Auto-Censoring DVD player, then shouldn't you also object to the other 3 things above? The user is bowderlising the content someone else provided, without their permission.
Art? Art? What is Art? One person's art is another's annoying popup.
I'm arguing that content providers (whether they be "artists" making a movie, or web authors making a web page) are equivalent. And that views of the content have the right to filter it however they want.
This strikes me as unnecessarily paranoid.
As long as there's free market (i.e., the goverment is not the one doing this) we are free to choose which algorithm for automatic editing we want. RCA puts out one that changes the meaning too much, I'll go get one from Sony that works differently.
I bought/rented the DVD. I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including automatically skip the stuff I don't want to see.
do you have any pop-up blockers installed?
your right in that it's a win for Google, and a Win for the web surfer, after all, it CAN show pop-up ads; you have the option.
but you only covered the web browser and the person browsing with it. The content providers should also have a say in if they want the art that they put together piece by piece ripped apart by some lame google pop-up blocker.
what if the entire web site lays on the popup where some critical piece of info is? guess you won't be surfin' to that website.
it's harmfull unless both the users and the content providers have the ability to circumvent it.
life is harsh, people say naughty things, and do naughty acts, the sooner we get over it, the better. look how dogs shake hands
We use scrum, and it has been working for us.
... sure more features could have been added but the code quality would have suffered. The product owner must understand this.
We've been using it for about 6 months, and so far only the last sprint (right before the launch) turned into a death march, and even that wasn't too bad (compared to other places I've worked). During the other 5 sprints most of us worked just regular hours.
Scrum, I think, can succeed if the team had good chemistry. If egos or personalities conflict, then I can easily see some of the problems in the article arising -- little refactoring occurs, little code fiefdoms arise, etc. But in our team this has not occurred.
For example, a large refactoring ended up being a placed into the sprint backlog during one of the sprint planning meetings. The product owner was willing to accept this 60-hour item, because we insisted on it. If the product owner doesn't accept these arguments from development, or doesn't have a good communicative relationship with the team
So, if the team is has a good working chemistry (including, maybe especially, the product owner), then scrum seems to work. I would not be surprised if it failed if this were not the case.
However, many guides do advise against using session variables, though not because of the load-balancing issues anymore. A quick search turns up one here. (I think this one is ASP-specific, though.)
Another correction to my posting: since sessionIDs are generally stored in a cookie, users will still have to have cookies enabled if you're going to use session variables.
No, I haven't! Please explain further.
With PHP session storage is file-based so you could share the same session directory between multiple servers.
Hmmm, file-based session variables might work, but it seems like it would really slow things down. The reason to use load-balancing is to speed things up.
But I'll admit I have never tried it personally.
Cookies lasting longer that sessions is Ok if you're the only one using the client computer but in settings like a public Internet facility you don't want that sort of stuff.
Most sites that do store persistent cookies will advise that you "log out" when you're done. But you're right, that is another disadvantage of cookies that I didn't list.
Storing only the username in a cookie is VERY dangerous! This way an attacker could forge a cookie with only a username and gain access
This is possible, sure. I was thinking of sites like Slashdot where the reward for such forgery would be minimal.
The problem I had in mind was that people use the same passwords on many different sites, so while forging someone's slashdot account is not a huge deal, stealing their slashdot password might be.
I've never heard of any web development guides which recommend against using session variables. Please point me to them, I'm very interested.
I don't know of any on-line guides that are relevant here (large-site design). The MCSD+I training materials do make this recommendation, if you put any stock in that. (I'm not an MCSD (thank God), but the guy across the hall is.)
Also, cookies can last longer than sessions, so your site can recognize somebody the next time they visit.
And, if you use cookies you don't really need to store the password in the cookie -- just the username. Keep the password in your database on the server. So, there isn't any additional security risk -- the only downside is that your users might have disabled cookies.
Most web development guides recommend against using session variables.
As has been pointed out 800 other times here, 0 is most definitely an even number. An even number is by definition a number which can be expressed in the form 2*n, where n is an integer. You can do that with 0.
At crystal.linuxgames.com there is a very good open-source 3D gaming engine. It is quite far along. Looks like this discussion ended a long time ago, though.
I signed up about 30 minutes ago, and was #999. So it seems 4000 should be quite easy.