I remember people like Thomas Ptacek warned against it years ago, particularly after a fiasco started by a blog article on Coding Horror on rainbow tables.
From TFA: "In the meantime, Intel also says it's now started manufacturing new versions of the chipsets with a silicon fix to solve the 3Gbps SATA problems, and that these will start shipping in mid-February. "
Yea, they adopted Ogg quite early, and I think Jimbo was personally involved (see the mailing list archives). I still remember reading the complaints on the media help talk page.
A password hash is a one-way function, which means that it is impossible to re-encode passwords stored using one hash using another hash. This means that the old password hash function must still be supported until all passwords are changed.
Well, it has nothing to do with the DOCTYPE themselves. The standards mode toggled by a <!DOCTYPE html> DOCTYPE is no different from a HTML 4.01 strict doctype.
Circa 2000, Netscape 4 sucked. Period. It was the worst, steaming pile of excrement to have ever sullied a hard drive
Yea, the fiasco with Netscape 4 and CSS/JSSS when Netscape submitted JSSS to the W3C and implemented it in Netscape 4, then it got rejected by the W3C in favor of CSS. As a result, Netscape has to rush a CSS to JSSS translator resulting in poor support.
IE5 and 6 were browsers that complied with nothing, and even today still cause problems for web designers.
Actually, after reading about it and thinking about it for a while, I think the full story with CSS was something like this: IE3 rushed to implement parts of CSS1. IE4 rushed to implement parts of CSS2. Note that both was released before the corresponding CSS level became a recommendation at W3C, and the final recommendation ended up being different from what IE implemented (for example, the box model). For IE 5.x, MS decided to force on adding proprietary features, not on increasing compliance, and WaSP complained about it. IE 6 introduced DOCTYPE switching, and achieved full compliance of CSS1 in the standard mode. Then IE stagnated for 5 years, and in the meantime people tried to use CSS2 and found the bugs introduced when IE4 rushed to implement CSS2 (and some other bugs) and IE6 was despised as not "standard-compliant". IE7 tried to fix some of the bugs in it's "standard modes", but by then some sites were depending on the CSS bugs in IE6. IE8 had to introduce another "standards" mode, and X-UA-Compatible and "Compatiblity View" to switch between the "standards modes".
They can make a HTML 5.00 standard, and have most of the browsers implement 99% of it and then they release 5.01 and the browser makers will get to work implementing that, but totally abandon implementing that last 1% of the HTML 5.00 spec...
And it actually happened with CSS 2.0. And people denounce IE6 as "non-compliant".
Not the IT manager targeted. Those knowing that HTTP runs on port 80 likely know that it is perfectly okay. Those that don't will just use the default when telnetting.
Slashdot Mirror
I read TFA and looks like they are quoting boilerplate. It is still funny, though.
I remember people like Thomas Ptacek warned against it years ago, particularly after a fiasco started by a blog article on Coding Horror on rainbow tables.
IMO directly responding is a much better alternative, and likely will be allowed.
At least this time it will be debated and amendments will be considered.
From TFA:
"In the meantime, Intel also says it's now started manufacturing new versions of the chipsets with a silicon fix to solve the 3Gbps SATA problems, and that these will start shipping in mid-February. "
In this case it was even worse. The government was paying telcos to do what already has been done, which is exactly what this aims to fix.
I never heard that Intel, HP, and Cisco were against net neutrality.
Yep, it dates back to NeXTStep I think.
Yea, they adopted Ogg quite early, and I think Jimbo was personally involved (see the mailing list archives). I still remember reading the complaints on the media help talk page.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug
Visit an article like this and see for yourselves:
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/11/14/1533230.shtml
HTML5 now have the <bdi> tag to solve this problem.
HTML5 now have the tag to solve this problem.
Yea, system compromises can and do happen, and a weak password hash is going to cause trouble in case of such a compromise.
A password hash is a one-way function, which means that it is impossible to re-encode passwords stored using one hash using another hash. This means that the old password hash function must still be supported until all passwords are changed.
Well, it has nothing to do with the DOCTYPE themselves. The standards mode toggled by a <!DOCTYPE html> DOCTYPE is no different from a HTML 4.01 strict doctype.
Actually, I think it is likely either Win98/Me or Mac OS X 10.3. It is just a guess though.
Well, keep in mind no browsers actually try to detect the HTML version number, they have quirks mode and standard mode instead.
Win95, I think.
- 1999 and earlier: No HTML standard existed and Mozilla Netscape just willy-nilly added new features (blink tag for example).
Yep, how many know that CSS dates back to 1994:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/msg/358f05eb3e9a79b5
Circa 2000, Netscape 4 sucked. Period. It was the worst, steaming pile of excrement to have ever sullied a hard drive
Yea, the fiasco with Netscape 4 and CSS/JSSS when Netscape submitted JSSS to the W3C and implemented it in Netscape 4, then it got rejected by the W3C in favor of CSS. As a result, Netscape has to rush a CSS to JSSS translator resulting in poor support.
IE5 and 6 were browsers that complied with nothing, and even today still cause problems for web designers.
Actually, after reading about it and thinking about it for a while, I think the full story with CSS was something like this: IE3 rushed to implement parts of CSS1. IE4 rushed to implement parts of CSS2. Note that both was released before the corresponding CSS level became a recommendation at W3C, and the final recommendation ended up being different from what IE implemented (for example, the box model). For IE 5.x, MS decided to force on adding proprietary features, not on increasing compliance, and WaSP complained about it. IE 6 introduced DOCTYPE switching, and achieved full compliance of CSS1 in the standard mode. Then IE stagnated for 5 years, and in the meantime people tried to use CSS2 and found the bugs introduced when IE4 rushed to implement CSS2 (and some other bugs) and IE6 was despised as not "standard-compliant". IE7 tried to fix some of the bugs in it's "standard modes", but by then some sites were depending on the CSS bugs in IE6. IE8 had to introduce another "standards" mode, and X-UA-Compatible and "Compatiblity View" to switch between the "standards modes".
They can make a HTML 5.00 standard, and have most of the browsers implement 99% of it and then they release 5.01 and the browser makers will get to work implementing that, but totally abandon implementing that last 1% of the HTML 5.00 spec...
And it actually happened with CSS 2.0. And people denounce IE6 as "non-compliant".
Not the IT manager targeted. Those knowing that HTTP runs on port 80 likely know that it is perfectly okay. Those that don't will just use the default when telnetting.
Yea, there is a difference between telnet on a private network and on the public Internet.