Looks like its time for sites to do some XSS auditing before they put up their sites, and make sure people can't just post arbitrary garbage by stuffing the query strings.
For those of you running active data on port 80 (or 443, or https/https on any public port), please PLEASE take the time to understand XSS and avoid coding sites that allow it to happen. Yes, even major sites like Perl.org and Yahoo.com have some pages that are NOT xss-safe.. but they're working on it. Are you?
Between the "User unknown" mess on port 25 from people using our domain in their forged "From:" line, with bounces coming back to us.. to the ones that just "woodpecker" on port 25 to see if there's an MTA there listening (looks like "[164.109.82.229] did not issue MAIL/EXPN/VRFY/ETRN during connection to MTA" for example), to the referer/trackback Poker spam from thousands of zombied machines... we're probably seeing 30% or more of our traffic is purely used to service, reject, or log the zombie trash.
Its pretty rampant, and we're noticing a gradual increase as weeks go by. More and more "different" attacks, worms, zombies and probes are happening. I can't ban them fast enough, because at this point, there are over 3,200 unique IP addresses that we've found so far.
Reporting it does nothing anymore. Since providers are getting so many abuse@ complaints, many of them are just sending them to/dev/null. Not a smart move.
I've started working on a process to auto-report the trash as it comes in, and for providers that reject the "abuse@" address, I block them too. If your customers are abusing our production services, and you don't allow us to report that abuse, we'll just lock you out. Piss off if you can't control your own customers or your own network.
So far we've done this for about 900 separate IPs, and about 200 full/24s. We also block the entire country of Brazil (the whole 200.0.0.0) on 25, 53 and 80.
Either we'll block the whole Internet, or providers will get so many complaints from their users that they can't get to sites they used to, that they'll begin to investigate.
Easy! Simply add a statement such as the following in your project notes, and adhere to it when accepting code, fixes or patches. Its what we do in several of our projects now.
In order to keep [Foo] unencumbered by intellectual property abuses (for example, SCO), all external contributors to the project are asked to release any rights to the submission. This keeps the [Foo] project a healthy, unencumbered GPL project. Please accompany your patch, code, or other submission with the following statement:
The author or authors of this submission hereby release any and all copyright interest in this code, documentation, or other materials included to the [Foo] project and its
primary governors. We intend this relinquishment of copyright interest in perpetuity of all present and future rights to said submission under copyright law.
This is defensible in a court of law, so your project should have no problem using it.
CRTs are here to stay, for awhile longer...
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 1
In terms of brightness, clarity, quality and depth of field, nothing (yet) beats a CRT, a high-quality CRT that is, not "your Dell monitor".
Its the difference between real film and digital photography. If you want the absolute best quality picture, you use real film. If you want "vacation snapshots" that are "good enough", you use digital.
I have a 21" Hitachi CRT monitor here, the biggest baddest one they make (cost me several thousand dollars new). I also have a very high-end LCD (top of the line a year or two ago). The CRT is several orders of magnitude better than the LCD, and they're roughly the same age (the CRT may be a year older than the LCD, not exactly sure).
I wouldn't give up my CRT for digital any day, and I spend most of my time on a $4,000 notebook with the biggest baddest LCD screen that IBM makes.
"This begs the question... where did that life come from? We can go w/ a relgious answer, say God or all life is energy, or something like that. I suspect that's a "nutter" answer from your perspective."
I don't believe in "nutters" actually... but I digress.
One alternative that you didn't mention, is that for "God" to exist, to create beings made of material in this universe, he too must be made of material in this universe... therefore the universe must have existed before "God" existed. So who created that?
It is against all laws of physics that we currently know of (subject to change at any time), for any being to create the universe in which it lives in.
Another plausible answer (backed up by thousands of cave paintings, artifacts, drawings, writings, and other accounts going back centuries), is that what people perceive as "God" today, was actually extra-terrestrial life itself. "Booming voices from the heavens" (breaking the sound barrier?), "fiery, flying chariots in the sky" (UFOs?), "Ascending into heaven" (levitations? anti-gravity?)
Nutty as it might sound... if you use Occum's Razor to surry this out, its more likely that cavepersons SAW these things first-hand, than "imagined" them in such accurate, intricate detail. (here is a resource I just quickly googled up).
There was a great quote in the movie "Red Planet", where a strongly religious crew member said (quoting from memory here) "What if I turn over a rock on Mars and it says "Made by God" on the bottom?"
What if we find life on Mars (or another nearby planet, or it finds us), and they give us a "Bible" of their religion? What if it differs radically from the ones already established here on Earth?
What if we turn over some stones on Mars and find evidence of language, tablets of writings, tools, or other artifacts of a civilization there?
Lots of possibilities, and the only way to cope with them all is to leave your mind open that these possibilities they might exist... even if we don't agree with them.
"This quote you have certainly didn't come from Sagan, he would never call Secular Humanism a religion."
No, it did not... which is why I did not attribute the quoted material to him in my original post.
Here is the link... further google'ing reveals more of the same... its a mixed bag, but if you check the books he's written, he's very clear on his beliefs, including the original one I cited; Contact. Here's another source I just googled up with an even greater level of detail and diagnosis on Carl's "beliefs".
Granted, since he's dead we can't go and ask him, but his writings spell it out nicely enough.
"However, the fact we are pretty late in the 'cosmic timeline' would lead one to think that most intelligent life has long since died out."
Your logic is flawed, and based on comparing the lifespan of "intelligent life" with the lifespan of human life.
Just because we're (self-rated as) the most intelligent, advanced creatures on Earth, does not mean that same scale exists across the entire universe. We could be seen as after-dinner mints to some further advanced race of eating machines. Are we ready to deal with another far-more-advanced race using us as toothpicks?
If a civilization started 2 million years before earth's first single-cellular organism, how do we know that it doesn't still exist today?
..or that life on other worlds, in other times, doesn't have a lifespan of say... 500,000 years per being? Or that they don't hibernate for 90,000 years then come back to life for 10,000?
We can't keep applying our "physics" to things we haven't yet discovered.
"Are you nuts? Or just like making stuff up? Devoutly religious?? It is extremely clear that he was a non theist."
[your unrelated, out of context quote snipped]
In the beginning of the book, Carl himself says that he is religious, however its not a religion you or I probably recognize (I'm non-religious as well)
To that end, Carl believed in "scientism", which is:
"Scientism is the belief that the assumptions, methods and even the speculations of science are equally appropriate, if not essential, for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion.
Scientism explicitly denies both the special revelation of truth and the existence of a sovereign, supernatural and eternal being. In the religion of Scientism, the Cosmos (matter, energy, time and space) is believed to be eternal and the only ultimate reality.
Scientism teaches that all things have their being and origin in the intrinsic properties of nature. It follows that if gods were to exist, they too would only be a part and product of nature. The social and philosophical implications of Scientism for man are embodied in the religion of Secular Humanism.
Sagan's scientistic religious beliefs and pronouncements are well documented in his own books:
_Broca's Brain_, New York : Random House, 1979 _The Cosmic Connection_, New York : Anchor Press, 1973 _Cosmos_, New York : Random House, 1980 _Life in the Universe_, San Francisco : Holden-Day Inc., 1966"
When you ask if people believe in "life on other planets", you'll get two camps (usually): 1.) The religious nutters who believe God created man once, and broke the mold, and 2.) Abductee nutters who believe aliens are living among us already.
All kidding aside... life exists elsewhere, its how WE came to exist HERE, in this time. It may not be bipedal, humanoid life, but its certainly life. Single-cellular organisms living at -400F on some distant planet is still life. Just because it isn't hovering around in a little saucer causing traffic jams in Mexico doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Also.. even if there was intelligent, bipedal humanoid life elsewhere, why would they be interested in us?
Maybe they're just as prehistoric in their space travels as us. Maybe they're so far ahead of us that they see us like we see an anthill in Africa. Who knows..
We also seem to keep trying to find life in places "similar" to our own. Why is it impossible to believe that a planet billions of light years away from the Sun could house intelligent life? Maybe they don't seek us out, because "Nothing that close to the Sun could survive...", just like we don't believe life could exist so far out in the blackness away from the Sun.
Imagine what a society of cells, left to evolve undisturbed for 2 million years (WITHOUT any Ice Age to reboot the process), would evolve to... Imagine what our society could do in the next 2 million years (if we don't blow ourselves up first)
Carl Sagan, a brilliant astronomer, was also a devoutly religious person. He believed in life on other planets. There's even a great mathematical equation (Drake's Equation) that sums it up really well.
Lastly, for those who haven't READ it, grab a copy of "Contact: A Novel" by Sagan. Its quite different from the movie... and well worth the read for how in-depth it goes into the interesting paradox about Religion, Science, Extraterrestrial Life and many other issues. Its worth the few dollars to read, if you're interested in debating this topic from any angle.
In short, life DOES exist elsewhere... but are we prepared to find it? Are we prepared for it to find us?
"The largest field study of its kind? Or the only study of its kind?"
Car companies do this all the time.. "Best in its class!" or "Rated top in this category". The reason is because they've defined their own "class", and their vehicle is the only one in it.
"...we will see a new installment of something like 9/11 to give the ignorant masses a refresher injection of terror and to push them into compliance with government and big corporations"
Oh, so you've heard of Operation Northwood before? Note the date on that article... May 1, 2001, 5 months before the 9/11 incident.
We've done it before, we'll do it again, it seems. The other interesting fact about Operation Northwood is that Donald Rumsfeld was apparently involved in that too. Coincidence?
It was only a matter of time before they manufactured some link between "Terrorism" and "Copyright Violation", so they can now use the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act to prosecute the offenders.
Both the DHS and the PA (and PAII) bypass the checks and balances in the Judicial System, allowing them to skip legal precedent and due-process. No warrants, no legitimate chain of custody, no laws to stop them from wiretapping, taking your computers, whatever.
They can charge you for breaking the law, and their charter specifically states they don't have to tell you which law(s) you're being charged with, because telling you would be a breach of national security, or some such drivel.
I mentioned this back when DHS was a Bush wet dream, and now it looks like I was right.
So now we have chip-level DRM and ATM/IDE redirection in the silicon from Intel, with AMD sure to follow. This means they can reformat, copy, delete, and reinstall your OS remotely if you're found to be "violating" Digital Restriction Management policies (which of course will begin to change over time to become stricter and stricter).
What's next? Biometrics "required" to use your PC, that checks some central database to make sure you're "allowed" to use your own content?
"I'm sorry, you just logged in 5 minutes ago from 20 miles away. This can't be possible, so we've locked your account. Please call the following number with your credit card number to authorize reactivation of your account and your operating system."
How far away are we from having centrally-controlled "computers" (Telescreens anyone?) or ones that require a sample of our DNA first before they'll operate properly?
Seriously, how else can they really start to control this? You know someone will write some sort of UML layer to run the OS on top of the OS, to abstract the whole DRM fu, and then they'll implement something more and something more... and then.. DNA required to operate your "computer" (which is all entirely hosted remotely, no local components at all).
And it does - except when people use stylesheets to specify an absolute size
So in other words, it doesn't. Ok, well I guess you win.
We'll keep making accessible, valid, useful designs that degrade for those without sight, poor sight, or other impairments... and you keep bitching about how we're not fitting your mold of the "other 99%".
We'd rather be in the 1% that gets it right, than the 99% that doesn't.
"A font size that is 25 points, and a 9 point line height! Imagine how that looks tons upon tons of letters on top of each other! STILL making the page unreadbale."
This is why "ignoring font size" (whatever that means), should also include the ability (like Mozilla does; not sure if Firefox can do this though), to specify a minimum font size for all pages (which basically "ignores" all font sizes smaller than that).
"That's just plain silly because you are one of the idiots who don't give a damn when you are discriminating against people with bad eyesight."
Ah, baseless accusations without any research, I should have recognized this troll at the first post.
Our sites go through a QA test of no less than 13 browsers on 4 platforms before they are released to the public. This includes disabling text, colors, styles and images, as well as testing it on a text-to-speech device, PDA, wap and cell browser. Our sites are XHTML (true xhtml, not that xhtml-sent-as-text/html mess) and meet or exceed Section 508 and WAI-AAA guidelines.
Why do you think I used em in my font declaration, and not px or pt? Specifically so you could resize the fonts to your liking, without breaking line-height. We don't develop in a vacuum, even if think we do.
So I think you need to go back and do some research before you start spewing your opinion about the matter about proper web design and site quality.
We care more about poorly-sighted individuals and those without sight altogether, as well as the colorblind... than almost everyone else we've been compared to.
...and I remove the font height from that line, should line-height be ignored also? No. That would just be plain silly and break thousands of cleanly structured CSS layouts.
"I was told that I could not install apache and Linux on 3 servers for a project here at work because Linux would not run our corporate virus scanner."
Did you respond with the fact that Microsoft Windows couldn't stand up to the rigorous security audits that are required for public webservers, so you went with Linux?
Their corporate virus scanner doesn't run on Linux (but other higher-quality AV products do), but Apache with proper ACLs and granular security measures don't run on Microsoft Windows either (yes, I know Apache is ported to Windows, but you can't run it in chroot, or lock it down with pf, or other things).
One of the best quotes I've ever seen on the whole OpenOffice.org vs. Microsoft Office debate:
"Microsoft properly asserts that OpenOffice.org is not 100% compatible with their product. Microsoft, however, has apparently decided not to support the OpenOffice.org formats either, for which they have no excuse: the standards for OpenOffice.org documents are publicly available, whereas Microsoft makes it a habit to sue people for reverse engineering their own formats."
"By your "where is it?" question, you seem to be assuming that open source software must be publically available. This is not the case."
You, like the original poster seem to be making the same (incorrect) assumption that making something available means making it free.
Oracle has software available, and I can point anyone to the webpage to find that software. Is it free? No. The same goes for hundreds of non-free and non-Free software packages from hundreds of commercial companies (Microsoft, SAP, Nokia, Sony whatever).
Just because its available, doesn't mean it is free. Don't make that same mistake (and please don't think you know what I "meant" to say).
"Go re-read the GPL. It only says that if I sell you software, I have to give you the source, not that I have to make it available to the general public. So, that's where *my* mystery projects are, in the hands of my customers."
I'll excuse your gross ignorance here for a moment...
I simply asked where the project was. I didn't say I wanted it to be GPL, nor did I say that I wanted it to be "free". You said it was "open-source", so I asked where it was.
Also, with regard to your ignorant statement about "re-reading the GPL", I have read it, as has our FSF-appointed attorney. We've been actively fighting GPL violation cases against two commercial companies who have taken our software and rebranded it (removing all of our copyright attribution, a copyright violation) and misrepresented the origin of it (a Lanham Act violation), and many other things for the last 4+ years. I know every single angle of the GPL, how it can be enforced, how it can be violated, and many other things. Our attorney teaches and practices IP and Copyright law. Trust me, I know more about how the GPL works than a majority of the Slashdot crowd. Consider your comment here ignored.
So I say again, where is this mystery project of yours?
Actually... don't tell me, I would never buy anything from you, not with your attitude. Never mind.
..."but it makes more economic sense to open-source it, build a small community around it to see where it can go, then it becomes a very powerful selling point to my consultant business."
Ok I'll bite... where is this mystery project of yours?
"How do you explain the phrase "He stole my idea.", if your arguement is correct. It isn't. Copyright infringement is theft."
First, you can't patent, copyright, or "own" ideas. They're not property, and "stealing" and "theft" specifically pertain to property. Also, you can't "steal" an idea, because the idea still exists in your head. (more detail here)
"There is such a thing as actions which cause lost revenue. Just look at the impact on Wendys of the lady who claimed to find a finger in a bowl of chili."
Your analogy doesn't fit. The mere presence of digital copies of copyrighted works does not dissuade people from purchasing those same works from the same copyright holder.
People who would have went to Wendy's were disgusted by the finger incident, and went elsewhere. Using your analogy, that is akin to knowing that sith.iso exists on the Internet, and going to see the movie "House of Wax" instead.
You're comparing the taste of an orange to the speed of a Porsche.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone noticed that their comments section has already been hijacked?
Looks like its time for sites to do some XSS auditing before they put up their sites, and make sure people can't just post arbitrary garbage by stuffing the query strings.
For those of you running active data on port 80 (or 443, or https/https on any public port), please PLEASE take the time to understand XSS and avoid coding sites that allow it to happen. Yes, even major sites like Perl.org and Yahoo.com have some pages that are NOT xss-safe.. but they're working on it. Are you?
Its pretty rampant, and we're noticing a gradual increase as weeks go by. More and more "different" attacks, worms, zombies and probes are happening. I can't ban them fast enough, because at this point, there are over 3,200 unique IP addresses that we've found so far.
Reporting it does nothing anymore. Since providers are getting so many abuse@ complaints, many of them are just sending them to /dev/null. Not a smart move.
I've started working on a process to auto-report the trash as it comes in, and for providers that reject the "abuse@" address, I block them too. If your customers are abusing our production services, and you don't allow us to report that abuse, we'll just lock you out. Piss off if you can't control your own customers or your own network.
So far we've done this for about 900 separate IPs, and about 200 full /24s. We also block the entire country of Brazil (the whole 200.0.0.0) on 25, 53 and 80.
Either we'll block the whole Internet, or providers will get so many complaints from their users that they can't get to sites they used to, that they'll begin to investigate.
Easy! Simply add a statement such as the following in your project notes, and adhere to it when accepting code, fixes or patches. Its what we do in several of our projects now.
This is defensible in a court of law, so your project should have no problem using it.
In terms of brightness, clarity, quality and depth of field, nothing (yet) beats a CRT, a high-quality CRT that is, not "your Dell monitor".
Its the difference between real film and digital photography. If you want the absolute best quality picture, you use real film. If you want "vacation snapshots" that are "good enough", you use digital.
I have a 21" Hitachi CRT monitor here, the biggest baddest one they make (cost me several thousand dollars new). I also have a very high-end LCD (top of the line a year or two ago). The CRT is several orders of magnitude better than the LCD, and they're roughly the same age (the CRT may be a year older than the LCD, not exactly sure).
I wouldn't give up my CRT for digital any day, and I spend most of my time on a $4,000 notebook with the biggest baddest LCD screen that IBM makes.
I don't believe in "nutters" actually... but I digress.
One alternative that you didn't mention, is that for "God" to exist, to create beings made of material in this universe, he too must be made of material in this universe... therefore the universe must have existed before "God" existed. So who created that?
It is against all laws of physics that we currently know of (subject to change at any time), for any being to create the universe in which it lives in.
Another plausible answer (backed up by thousands of cave paintings, artifacts, drawings, writings, and other accounts going back centuries), is that what people perceive as "God" today, was actually extra-terrestrial life itself. "Booming voices from the heavens" (breaking the sound barrier?), "fiery, flying chariots in the sky" (UFOs?), "Ascending into heaven" (levitations? anti-gravity?)
Nutty as it might sound... if you use Occum's Razor to surry this out, its more likely that cavepersons SAW these things first-hand, than "imagined" them in such accurate, intricate detail. (here is a resource I just quickly googled up).
There was a great quote in the movie "Red Planet", where a strongly religious crew member said (quoting from memory here) "What if I turn over a rock on Mars and it says "Made by God" on the bottom?"
What if we find life on Mars (or another nearby planet, or it finds us), and they give us a "Bible" of their religion? What if it differs radically from the ones already established here on Earth?
What if we turn over some stones on Mars and find evidence of language, tablets of writings, tools, or other artifacts of a civilization there?
Lots of possibilities, and the only way to cope with them all is to leave your mind open that these possibilities they might exist... even if we don't agree with them.
No, it did not... which is why I did not attribute the quoted material to him in my original post.
Here is the link... further google'ing reveals more of the same... its a mixed bag, but if you check the books he's written, he's very clear on his beliefs, including the original one I cited; Contact. Here's another source I just googled up with an even greater level of detail and diagnosis on Carl's "beliefs".
Granted, since he's dead we can't go and ask him, but his writings spell it out nicely enough.
Your logic is flawed, and based on comparing the lifespan of "intelligent life" with the lifespan of human life.
Just because we're (self-rated as) the most intelligent, advanced creatures on Earth, does not mean that same scale exists across the entire universe. We could be seen as after-dinner mints to some further advanced race of eating machines. Are we ready to deal with another far-more-advanced race using us as toothpicks?
If a civilization started 2 million years before earth's first single-cellular organism, how do we know that it doesn't still exist today?
..or that life on other worlds, in other times, doesn't have a lifespan of say... 500,000 years per being? Or that they don't hibernate for 90,000 years then come back to life for 10,000?
We can't keep applying our "physics" to things we haven't yet discovered.
[your unrelated, out of context quote snipped]
In the beginning of the book, Carl himself says that he is religious, however its not a religion you or I probably recognize (I'm non-religious as well)
To that end, Carl believed in " scientism ", which is:
When you ask if people believe in "life on other planets", you'll get two camps (usually): 1.) The religious nutters who believe God created man once, and broke the mold, and 2.) Abductee nutters who believe aliens are living among us already.
All kidding aside... life exists elsewhere, its how WE came to exist HERE, in this time. It may not be bipedal, humanoid life, but its certainly life. Single-cellular organisms living at -400F on some distant planet is still life. Just because it isn't hovering around in a little saucer causing traffic jams in Mexico doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Also.. even if there was intelligent, bipedal humanoid life elsewhere, why would they be interested in us?
Maybe they're just as prehistoric in their space travels as us. Maybe they're so far ahead of us that they see us like we see an anthill in Africa. Who knows..
We also seem to keep trying to find life in places "similar" to our own. Why is it impossible to believe that a planet billions of light years away from the Sun could house intelligent life? Maybe they don't seek us out, because "Nothing that close to the Sun could survive...", just like we don't believe life could exist so far out in the blackness away from the Sun.
Imagine what a society of cells, left to evolve undisturbed for 2 million years (WITHOUT any Ice Age to reboot the process), would evolve to... Imagine what our society could do in the next 2 million years (if we don't blow ourselves up first)
Carl Sagan, a brilliant astronomer, was also a devoutly religious person. He believed in life on other planets. There's even a great mathematical equation (Drake's Equation) that sums it up really well.
Lastly, for those who haven't READ it, grab a copy of "Contact: A Novel" by Sagan. Its quite different from the movie... and well worth the read for how in-depth it goes into the interesting paradox about Religion, Science, Extraterrestrial Life and many other issues. Its worth the few dollars to read, if you're interested in debating this topic from any angle.
In short, life DOES exist elsewhere... but are we prepared to find it? Are we prepared for it to find us?
Car companies do this all the time.. "Best in its class!" or "Rated top in this category". The reason is because they've defined their own "class", and their vehicle is the only one in it.
Too bad that list stops at 1997. I wish there was one that remained current... I'm sure their acquisitions accellerated over the last few years.
Oh, so you've heard of Operation Northwood before? Note the date on that article... May 1, 2001 , 5 months before the 9/11 incident.
We've done it before, we'll do it again, it seems. The other interesting fact about Operation Northwood is that Donald Rumsfeld was apparently involved in that too. Coincidence?
It was only a matter of time before they manufactured some link between "Terrorism" and "Copyright Violation", so they can now use the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act to prosecute the offenders.
Both the DHS and the PA (and PAII) bypass the checks and balances in the Judicial System, allowing them to skip legal precedent and due-process. No warrants, no legitimate chain of custody, no laws to stop them from wiretapping, taking your computers, whatever.
They can charge you for breaking the law, and their charter specifically states they don't have to tell you which law(s) you're being charged with, because telling you would be a breach of national security, or some such drivel.
I mentioned this back when DHS was a Bush wet dream, and now it looks like I was right.
Sigh.
So now we have chip-level DRM and ATM/IDE redirection in the silicon from Intel, with AMD sure to follow. This means they can reformat, copy, delete, and reinstall your OS remotely if you're found to be "violating" Digital Restriction Management policies (which of course will begin to change over time to become stricter and stricter).
What's next? Biometrics "required" to use your PC, that checks some central database to make sure you're "allowed" to use your own content?
How far away are we from having centrally-controlled "computers" (Telescreens anyone?) or ones that require a sample of our DNA first before they'll operate properly?
Seriously, how else can they really start to control this? You know someone will write some sort of UML layer to run the OS on top of the OS, to abstract the whole DRM fu, and then they'll implement something more and something more... and then.. DNA required to operate your "computer" (which is all entirely hosted remotely, no local components at all).
Nice.
These specialized motherboards already exist... they're powered by PowerPC chipsets. =)
So in other words, it doesn't. Ok, well I guess you win.
We'll keep making accessible, valid, useful designs that degrade for those without sight, poor sight, or other impairments... and you keep bitching about how we're not fitting your mold of the "other 99%".
We'd rather be in the 1% that gets it right, than the 99% that doesn't.
This is why "ignoring font size" (whatever that means), should also include the ability (like Mozilla does; not sure if Firefox can do this though), to specify a minimum font size for all pages (which basically "ignores" all font sizes smaller than that).
Ah, baseless accusations without any research, I should have recognized this troll at the first post.
Our sites go through a QA test of no less than 13 browsers on 4 platforms before they are released to the public. This includes disabling text, colors, styles and images, as well as testing it on a text-to-speech device, PDA, wap and cell browser. Our sites are XHTML (true xhtml, not that xhtml-sent-as-text/html mess) and meet or exceed Section 508 and WAI-AAA guidelines.
Why do you think I used em in my font declaration, and not px or pt ? Specifically so you could resize the fonts to your liking, without breaking line-height. We don't develop in a vacuum, even if think we do.
So I think you need to go back and do some research before you start spewing your opinion about the matter about proper web design and site quality.
We care more about poorly-sighted individuals and those without sight altogether, as well as the colorblind... than almost everyone else we've been compared to.
Actually... no it isn't, and that's intentional.
If you have the following:
...and I remove the font height from that line, should line-height be ignored also? No. That would just be plain silly and break thousands of cleanly structured CSS layouts.
Did you respond with the fact that Microsoft Windows couldn't stand up to the rigorous security audits that are required for public webservers, so you went with Linux?
Their corporate virus scanner doesn't run on Linux (but other higher-quality AV products do), but Apache with proper ACLs and granular security measures don't run on Microsoft Windows either (yes, I know Apache is ported to Windows, but you can't run it in chroot, or lock it down with pf, or other things).
One of the best quotes I've ever seen on the whole OpenOffice.org vs. Microsoft Office debate:
You, like the original poster seem to be making the same (incorrect) assumption that making something available means making it free.
Oracle has software available, and I can point anyone to the webpage to find that software. Is it free? No. The same goes for hundreds of non-free and non-Free software packages from hundreds of commercial companies (Microsoft, SAP, Nokia, Sony whatever).
Just because its available, doesn't mean it is free. Don't make that same mistake (and please don't think you know what I "meant" to say).
Psst... I know that, I was responding to "vrmlguy" as well as "telbij" at the same time.
I'll excuse your gross ignorance here for a moment...
I simply asked where the project was. I didn't say I wanted it to be GPL, nor did I say that I wanted it to be "free". You said it was "open-source", so I asked where it was.
Also, with regard to your ignorant statement about "re-reading the GPL", I have read it, as has our FSF-appointed attorney. We've been actively fighting GPL violation cases against two commercial companies who have taken our software and rebranded it (removing all of our copyright attribution, a copyright violation) and misrepresented the origin of it (a Lanham Act violation), and many other things for the last 4+ years. I know every single angle of the GPL, how it can be enforced, how it can be violated, and many other things. Our attorney teaches and practices IP and Copyright law. Trust me, I know more about how the GPL works than a majority of the Slashdot crowd. Consider your comment here ignored.
So I say again, where is this mystery project of yours?
Actually... don't tell me, I would never buy anything from you, not with your attitude. Never mind.
Ok I'll bite... where is this mystery project of yours?
First, you can't patent, copyright, or "own" ideas. They're not property, and "stealing" and "theft" specifically pertain to property. Also, you can't "steal" an idea, because the idea still exists in your head. (more detail here)
Your analogy doesn't fit. The mere presence of digital copies of copyrighted works does not dissuade people from purchasing those same works from the same copyright holder.
People who would have went to Wendy's were disgusted by the finger incident, and went elsewhere. Using your analogy, that is akin to knowing that sith.iso exists on the Internet, and going to see the movie "House of Wax" instead.
You're comparing the taste of an orange to the speed of a Porsche.