Oooh. Went in and disabled that -- I hadn't looked in there recently.
TBE does not work on my browser and has not for a fairly long time now (Oct 5 nightly under OS X) so I keep having to remove it, I've reported this multiple times and it still has not been fixed) but recent nightlies are starting to have better single window support. Look in the advanced settings under Tabbed Browsing.
Try this Firefox extension -- although if, like me, you are a Mac user, there is no "true" right button -- control-click still uses the left button to bring up the menu. So I don't usually run into this problem unless I'm using my gaming machine to browse the web. So if you're a Mac user, you probably don't need this.
Yep, although I use a Mac so the browser never sees a real right mouse button ("right click" is just an emulated control-left click.) So rightclick blockers only see the left button even if what I'm really doing is pulling up the context menu.
I do think it's a neat extension and it'd be neat to see how well it works for Windows users who visit sites that try to block this. (Any personal experience on your part?)
Yes, I know that. But in Acrobat, it's expected that it will behave that way, and Acrobat does explain why. I deal with Acrobat every day, practically.
YOU seem to misunderstand something. It's OK, IN MY OPINION (have your own opinion, but don't screech at me for having one, and I won't scream at you for having yours) to do things like overlay with transparent GIFs, etc. that accomplish the same goal. But don't actively interfere with the user's expectations. If there's an image etc you don't want them to copy, overlay it with a transparent image (tirerack.com does this and it works well) but don't go disabling parts of the browser that the user expects to be there all the time. Who knows what they want/need it for?
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, the balance I think is best is different than the one you think is best. Don't bitch at me for having a personal opinion and I won't yell at you for having one. Don't like it? Tough shit.
First, you say it 'No, it doesn't change the way the software behaves.' Then you go on to say that it 'disables the context menu by cancelling the event from an event handler'.
The context menu is part of the way the software behaves. And as I said in another post elsewhere in this thread, people expect the context menu to be there all the time (right-click, then select Back, for instance). If they can't do that, they'll sure say that their software was acting different and that they never asked for such a thing to be done.
Sure, nobody's forcing you to read the pages, but if you do want people to read your pages, don't mess with their browsers. The transparent gif trick is one I've seen elsewhere, and THAT doesn't mess with functionality. If Google wants to do that, fine. But they shouldn't be actually intruding on stuff that sites should not be allowed to tamper with.
(This is why there is a "block status bar text changes" option in Firefox -- too many sites were abusing the ability to put stupid stuff in the status bar and ruin its usefulness, and if people hadn't found it annoying they probably wouldn't have requested the feature be added to the browser. I personally find it aggravating when a site yells at me for daring to right-click. The site has no way of knowing I just wanted to select , say, "Copy URL" or "Back" or something equally harmless, not swipe their content. I expect the context menu to Just Work.)
And a lot of places give those sites negative reviews, and it's well deserved -- people expect basic functions like right-click, copy, paste, back, etc. to function normally wherever they go. Users have come to expect that.
For example, some people have a habit of right-clicking, then selecting the back option from there (I find that odd but I know people who do that). If they right-click a page and get a message screaming at them for daring to right-click, which they did to just get out of the page, they tend to get a negative impression of the site and feel like they are being trapped there.
So yes, I see it as a security vulnerability... because it means that a site has control over software installed on the user's computer and doesn't ask for consent before it goes changing how that software behaves. Maybe for some people it's not a big deal to find that the cut button doesn't work, but who says it'll stop there? What else is the browser going to roll over and obey? Allowing such basic functions to be turned off is a mistake that no software should ever make. It is indeed a security problem.
At the very least, the user should see a message displayed that says "This site has requested the following interface changes. Allow or deny?" (or similar.) Ideally, the browser should have a "permissions" setting set like Firefox's Javascript permissions list.
I'd like to see something like this, for instance, in Firefox's security settings near the Javascript permission settings:
Block sites from:
[X] Disabling menu items [X] Disabling right-click context menus [X] Opening new windows (single-window mode)
And so on. Does that really look so unreasonable and out of place? Looks fine to me...
Where can we see a sample of this to test whether it actually does these disabling things?
I do agree that this is a security problem. We already have options in some browsers (I use Firefox, for example) to block sites from changing status bar text, changing images, etc. And there was no fuss about that. I think disabling such basic functions as copy, paste, print falls in the same "no-no" category as changing statusbar text, changing images, etc.
A site presents a page in a certain way, but I as the user get to select how I view it, with what functions I want to view it, which parts of the site I want active and which ones I don't. You can't force me to accept what I don't want to accept. If I set my software to ignore part of your site, that's my choice, not yours.
You don't go disabling functions in users' browsers. You let them do that themselves. Conversely, you don't enable stuff the user didn't enable themselves.
Isn't it now about to be illegal to go changing peoples' browser settings via the use of spyware? Doesn't this come awfully close to doing the same thing? If it changes how my software behaves, it's awfully close to being malware.
You never know what someone's doing with the money you give them in exchange for goods or services, and that isn't someting you should be worrying about. You should do your research (like, is the charity you're donating to actually giving money to the cause it claims to be, or is it giving some miniscule amount and keeping the rest as "processing fees"?). But you aren't going to get into trouble for donating to the wrong group.
In any case... I guess I'm behind on Java releases. Last time Apple put out an update it was for 1.4.x. And that wasn't all that long ago.
Not necessarily tunnels, though. Some lines run in urban areas, others are cut through or next to sheer cliffs (like highways), some pass through industrial centers. While oversize loads are sometiimes carried on railroads, they are relatively rare. But the SRBs may well be one of those loads.
Here are some of the few photos of the SRB transports that I've been able to find:
I know you didn't mean it this way but I'm gonna be goofy and take you literally.
As for hosting, one of them (second I think) is on the campus of the university I work for. I do not, however, work on that campus -- the medical campus is a separate one a short (relatively) distance away.
'The St. Louis debate will be the only one with a town-hall forum, with likely voters from the audience, selected by the Gallup Organization, posing the questions. A statement by the two sides said the debates "will ensure a productive and fruitful exchange of ideas about the most important issues facing Americans today."'
Anyone else here from WUSTL? It'd be nice to know!
Of course, I'm kinda annoyed. Hilltop people get a free day off. Us? We gotta work. Hmph.
It looks like my original post somehow got eaten, but what I was trying to post (maybe I did and I'm not seeing it when trying to climb the post tree?) was that you got it backward... the External Tank is produced in Lockheed's Michoud plant in LA and shipped by barge to FL. The SRBs are processed in Utah and shipped by rail to FL. (and back to UT post-launch). The SRBs do indeed have to be sized to fit within the available rail tunnels, or more accurately, within the railcars used to transport them which must fit within the constraints imposed by the shipment routes. Alas, photos of the transport cars are relatively rare, and as a train buff, I've looked. Argh.
I know a lot of people who are apathetic about air travel, or scared of it (and won't listen when I explain that cars are far more dangerous, yet they have cars!)... and yet we still have aviation.
It doesn't matter if there are disinterested people as long as there are enough interested people.
The Canadian Arrow is a modified A-4/V-2 missile which incorporates some of the ideas that von Braun had for his system back in the 1940s but never was able to try before his government was no longer funding him. (He dropped the V-2 work after the late 1940s to build his next rocket, Redstone.)
There is indeed an escape system on the Shuttle, installed after Challenger (not that it would have ever had a chance to save that crew.)
If the orbiter is in controlled (relatively) wings-level (mostly) flight, the side hatch can be blown off explosively and an extendable escape pole set up. This pole is used to ensure that the people jumping out of the ship won't hit the wings before they're caught in the slipstream -- a problem that led to the development of ejection seats when jet aircraft proved too fast for older conventional bailout techniques.
After that it's much like bailing out of anything - hit the ground properly, use your raft/whatever, and stay alive long enough to be rescued.
Given that Columbia wasn't really in controlled flight, it would have depended on how much longer the ship would hold together at the time of bailout. Fortunately, the nose RCS thrusters are far enough away from the hatch that I think it could have been a safe jump. However, the thrusters are generally disabled by the time the shuttle gets low enough for a bailout to be an option.
Yes, it is. That was put in in large part at the request of the astronauts, who felt that they did not wish to be completely excluded from the loop, and so there should be something a human had to do to prevent the entire system from shutting them out. This is why the US system can't fly unmanned -- autopilot technologies have advanced so that takeoffs and landings no longer absolutely need pilots -- but could be altered relatively easily in the future if it was ever required.
Yup. That 'Aero-Buran' was put on display in Sydney. It has four jet engines fitted to the tail where the US shuttle has the OMS pods. It's still there due to funding problems, similar to the way this one was stranded in Bahrain. There are a number of full-size test articles that were built and used for varying purposes in support of the first all-up flight (and only, sadly) which was in 1988.
Slashdot Mirror
No, seriously.
Turn him over to collections. It won't help his credit rating any if he refuses to pay his bills. I hope you kept copies of everything?
Oooh. Went in and disabled that -- I hadn't looked in there recently.
TBE does not work on my browser and has not for a fairly long time now (Oct 5 nightly under OS X) so I keep having to remove it, I've reported this multiple times and it still has not been fixed) but recent nightlies are starting to have better single window support. Look in the advanced settings under Tabbed Browsing.
Try this Firefox extension -- although if, like me, you are a Mac user, there is no "true" right button -- control-click still uses the left button to bring up the menu. So I don't usually run into this problem unless I'm using my gaming machine to browse the web. So if you're a Mac user, you probably don't need this.
Allow Right-Click 0.1
Yep, although I use a Mac so the browser never sees a real right mouse button ("right click" is just an emulated control-left click.) So rightclick blockers only see the left button even if what I'm really doing is pulling up the context menu.
I do think it's a neat extension and it'd be neat to see how well it works for Windows users who visit sites that try to block this. (Any personal experience on your part?)
Yes, I know that. But in Acrobat, it's expected that it will behave that way, and Acrobat does explain why. I deal with Acrobat every day, practically.
YOU seem to misunderstand something. It's OK, IN MY OPINION (have your own opinion, but don't screech at me for having one, and I won't scream at you for having yours) to do things like overlay with transparent GIFs, etc. that accomplish the same goal. But don't actively interfere with the user's expectations. If there's an image etc you don't want them to copy, overlay it with a transparent image (tirerack.com does this and it works well) but don't go disabling parts of the browser that the user expects to be there all the time. Who knows what they want/need it for?
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, the balance I think is best is different than the one you think is best. Don't bitch at me for having a personal opinion and I won't yell at you for having one. Don't like it? Tough shit.
First, you say it 'No, it doesn't change the way the software behaves.' Then you go on to say that it 'disables the context menu by cancelling the event from an event handler'.
The context menu is part of the way the software behaves. And as I said in another post elsewhere in this thread, people expect the context menu to be there all the time (right-click, then select Back, for instance). If they can't do that, they'll sure say that their software was acting different and that they never asked for such a thing to be done.
Sure, nobody's forcing you to read the pages, but if you do want people to read your pages, don't mess with their browsers. The transparent gif trick is one I've seen elsewhere, and THAT doesn't mess with functionality. If Google wants to do that, fine. But they shouldn't be actually intruding on stuff that sites should not be allowed to tamper with.
(This is why there is a "block status bar text changes" option in Firefox -- too many sites were abusing the ability to put stupid stuff in the status bar and ruin its usefulness, and if people hadn't found it annoying they probably wouldn't have requested the feature be added to the browser. I personally find it aggravating when a site yells at me for daring to right-click. The site has no way of knowing I just wanted to select , say, "Copy URL" or "Back" or something equally harmless, not swipe their content. I expect the context menu to Just Work.)
And a lot of places give those sites negative reviews, and it's well deserved -- people expect basic functions like right-click, copy, paste, back, etc. to function normally wherever they go. Users have come to expect that.
...
For example, some people have a habit of right-clicking, then selecting the back option from there (I find that odd but I know people who do that). If they right-click a page and get a message screaming at them for daring to right-click, which they did to just get out of the page, they tend to get a negative impression of the site and feel like they are being trapped there.
So yes, I see it as a security vulnerability... because it means that a site has control over software installed on the user's computer and doesn't ask for consent before it goes changing how that software behaves. Maybe for some people it's not a big deal to find that the cut button doesn't work, but who says it'll stop there? What else is the browser going to roll over and obey? Allowing such basic functions to be turned off is a mistake that no software should ever make. It is indeed a security problem.
At the very least, the user should see a message displayed that says "This site has requested the following interface changes. Allow or deny?" (or similar.) Ideally, the browser should have a "permissions" setting set like Firefox's Javascript permissions list.
I'd like to see something like this, for instance, in Firefox's security settings near the Javascript permission settings:
Block sites from:
[X] Disabling menu items
[X] Disabling right-click context menus
[X] Opening new windows (single-window mode)
And so on. Does that really look so unreasonable and out of place? Looks fine to me
Where can we see a sample of this to test whether it actually does these disabling things?
I do agree that this is a security problem. We already have options in some browsers (I use Firefox, for example) to block sites from changing status bar text, changing images, etc. And there was no fuss about that. I think disabling such basic functions as copy, paste, print falls in the same "no-no" category as changing statusbar text, changing images, etc.
A site presents a page in a certain way, but I as the user get to select how I view it, with what functions I want to view it, which parts of the site I want active and which ones I don't. You can't force me to accept what I don't want to accept. If I set my software to ignore part of your site, that's my choice, not yours.
You don't go disabling functions in users' browsers. You let them do that themselves. Conversely, you don't enable stuff the user didn't enable themselves.
Isn't it now about to be illegal to go changing peoples' browser settings via the use of spyware? Doesn't this come awfully close to doing the same thing? If it changes how my software behaves, it's awfully close to being malware.
You can't be sued for covering a song, however, you do have to request permission first, like you say. There are compulsory licenses for this.
Legally Recording/Distributing Cover Songs
You never know what someone's doing with the money you give them in exchange for goods or services, and that isn't someting you should be worrying about. You should do your research (like, is the charity you're donating to actually giving money to the cause it claims to be, or is it giving some miniscule amount and keeping the rest as "processing fees"?). But you aren't going to get into trouble for donating to the wrong group.
In any case... I guess I'm behind on Java releases. Last time Apple put out an update it was for 1.4.x. And that wasn't all that long ago.
I don't know what the point is of that. It's not like spyware will magically go away for good before then.
Shouldn't that be "one browser to bind them"?
How do you say that in the Black Speech?
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-Car, a nice Reliant automobile.
Hump yards -- biiiiiiig hill. But then, I'm pretty sure you're teasing. ;)
Not necessarily tunnels, though. Some lines run in urban areas, others are cut through or next to sheer cliffs (like highways), some pass through industrial centers. While oversize loads are sometiimes carried on railroads, they are relatively rare. But the SRBs may well be one of those loads.
Here are some of the few photos of the SRB transports that I've been able to find:
RailPictures.Net Photo Union Pacific Railroad EMD SD9043MAC
NASA/Kennedy Space Center Multimedia Gallery
NASA/Kennedy Space Center Multimedia Gallery
NASA/Kennedy Space Center Multimedia Gallery
Notice that the shrouds are wider than the width of the flatcars they cover.
I know you didn't mean it this way but I'm gonna be goofy and take you literally.
As for hosting, one of them (second I think) is on the campus of the university I work for. I do not, however, work on that campus -- the medical campus is a separate one a short (relatively) distance away.
Washington University Presidential Debate 2004
Campaigns agree to WUSTL debate on Oct. 8
Here's some of the official blurb:
'The St. Louis debate will be the only one with a town-hall forum, with likely voters from the audience, selected by the Gallup Organization, posing the questions. A statement by the two sides said the debates "will ensure a productive and fruitful exchange of ideas about the most important issues facing Americans today."'
Anyone else here from WUSTL? It'd be nice to know!
Of course, I'm kinda annoyed. Hilltop people get a free day off. Us? We gotta work. Hmph.
It looks like my original post somehow got eaten, but what I was trying to post (maybe I did and I'm not seeing it when trying to climb the post tree?) was that you got it backward... the External Tank is produced in Lockheed's Michoud plant in LA and shipped by barge to FL. The SRBs are processed in Utah and shipped by rail to FL. (and back to UT post-launch). The SRBs do indeed have to be sized to fit within the available rail tunnels, or more accurately, within the railcars used to transport them which must fit within the constraints imposed by the shipment routes. Alas, photos of the transport cars are relatively rare, and as a train buff, I've looked. Argh.
It's in Groton, right next to Mystic, not in Greenwich. I was there last week at the sub museum with a friend whose father was a submariner.
I know a lot of people who are apathetic about air travel, or scared of it (and won't listen when I explain that cars are far more dangerous, yet they have cars!) ... and yet we still have aviation.
It doesn't matter if there are disinterested people as long as there are enough interested people.
Yes, but remember...
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
- Tom Lehrer
The Canadian Arrow is a modified A-4/V-2 missile which incorporates some of the ideas that von Braun had for his system back in the 1940s but never was able to try before his government was no longer funding him. (He dropped the V-2 work after the late 1940s to build his next rocket, Redstone.)
Canadian Arrow spacecraft in launch configuration
V-2 systems diagram
And the interior is A-4/V-2 based as well:
Canadian Arrow engine
A-4 components during production before installation of outer skin
In addition to this, the photo of the landed return capsule is very reminiscent of the Gemini program.
CA descent capsule awaiting recovery
Gemini crew capsule awaiting recovery
What goes around comes around!
And did we quit crossing the Atlantic because Lindbergh won the Orteig prize and no money was left?
No.
This isn't going away either.
There is indeed an escape system on the Shuttle, installed after Challenger (not that it would have ever had a chance to save that crew.)
If the orbiter is in controlled (relatively) wings-level (mostly) flight, the side hatch can be blown off explosively and an extendable escape pole set up. This pole is used to ensure that the people jumping out of the ship won't hit the wings before they're caught in the slipstream -- a problem that led to the development of ejection seats when jet aircraft proved too fast for older conventional bailout techniques.
After that it's much like bailing out of anything - hit the ground properly, use your raft/whatever, and stay alive long enough to be rescued.
Given that Columbia wasn't really in controlled flight, it would have depended on how much longer the ship would hold together at the time of bailout. Fortunately, the nose RCS thrusters are far enough away from the hatch that I think it could have been a safe jump. However, the thrusters are generally disabled by the time the shuttle gets low enough for a bailout to be an option.
Yes, it is. That was put in in large part at the request of the astronauts, who felt that they did not wish to be completely excluded from the loop, and so there should be something a human had to do to prevent the entire system from shutting them out. This is why the US system can't fly unmanned -- autopilot technologies have advanced so that takeoffs and landings no longer absolutely need pilots -- but could be altered relatively easily in the future if it was ever required.
Yup. That 'Aero-Buran' was put on display in Sydney. It has four jet engines fitted to the tail where the US shuttle has the OMS pods. It's still there due to funding problems, similar to the way this one was stranded in Bahrain. There are a number of full-size test articles that were built and used for varying purposes in support of the first all-up flight (and only, sadly) which was in 1988.