This is exactly my reasoning because typically IE is the only major browser that misbehaves. Why start by writing a ton of code for a browser that doesn't properly implement DOM/CSS? I save all the ugliness for last rather than build my entire application on a foundation of hacks and work-arounds.
It's simply a matter of my own incompetence? I'd almost be inclined to believe that were it not for the fact that IE routinely breaks despite my code working beautifully in every other browser. In other words - their bad, not mine.
Starting with IE is a good suggestion, I'll just switch to table-based layouts and use strictly decade-old CSS.
Y'know, over a decade and 4 versions - you'd think M$ would have straightened up their implementation of the DOM, especially with increasing and high profile competition from Google. As a web developer, it never ceases to amaze me when I design a web-site that works in nearly every browser *except* IE(any version). I typically have to budget as much(or more) time fixing a site for IE as I spent designing it in the first place. Sometimes I wonder if they're just fucking with us or legitimately writing a browser. If IE doesn't shape up, I'm going to order an army of monkeys to un-install it from every computer of the face of the planet.
I'm confused, if Chrome doesn't do ad-blocking then what's this? Are you saying that AdBlock for chrome is different in some significant way? If yes, please provide a citation.
..securing user data after it's been made public on Google for the world to see forever after does not make up for the poor design, implementation and security..
Neither TFS nor any previous poster said that GroupOn's effective, albeit untimely, response in any way abdicates them from the responsibility for the leak. TFS simply meant that GroupOn's immediate reaction(once they knew what had happened) deserves some consideration.
they shouldn't be in a position of such responsibility in the first place, let alone now
I'm guessing that you mean that if a software developer can't write 100% secure software the first time, said developer shouldn't develop software at all?
the entire management and security team should be replaced
Please correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly, but it seems to me that you're advocating strict government oversight of the entire software industry.
Some low profit margin businesses will not have the option of moving overseas and therefore will resort to further consolidation in order to offset expenses. Either way it will be bad for small to medium sized business.
No, GP really isn't missing the point. The repercussions are justified when the accuser can prove without a shadow of a doubt that such accusations are in-fact true. Doling out punishment simply based on an accusation is not justice. Not to mention that witness testimony itself is known to be incredibly unreliable and inaccurate. And regardless of how serious the accusation is, it is important to incessantly question everything, assume everything is false, and be SKEPTICAL.
If I say, "The moon is falling," this is a VERY serious accusation against the moon, as it might mean the inexorable extinction of every organism on the planet. After making said statement, you then look up at the sky and see doubtless proof that the moon is in-fact still in orbit and ultimately conclude that my statement is false.
Given that scenario, am I then to be hauled off to jail and charged with a felony?
In lieu of a proper education system, our gov't instead "protects" the people from themselves by doling out fines and punishments for inane and pointless bullshit, like making wildly inaccurate and idiotic statements. Oh no, this is super serious because it involves pedophilia - think of the children. Please. These kids are stupid for what they did. The school administrators are stupid for how they responded. And last but not least, society is stupid for blowing defamation out of proportion. Are we all really so narcissistic that someone baselessly calling us names warrants their exile, incarceration or financial ruin?
Typical Americans are more interested in football than the downward spiral of society. Not only that but the establishment psychologically condi.. SQUIRREL!
It's not simply the propensity of software to appeal to the lowest-common denominator that drives adoption. Wide-spread adoption enables monopolies which then force otherwise intelligent individuals to make poor decisions.
Just add an amendment that says every time the government uses a roving wiretap, they have to provide a free abortion to an inner-city teenager. That ought to do the trick.
I fail to see how this will make any difference. Is it not the standard operating procedure of government institutions like Planned Parenthood to doll out as many abortions as possible?
wouldn't it be fair to say that the labor for profit game is antiquated by the propensity of labor to be automated? and by extension, the idea of copyright is rendered obsolete.
While your sentiment is a little premature, I can't agree with you more. The vast number of quirky behaviors in IE makes the task of web development a miserable chore. For that reason, web developers spend more time fighting with their own platform and consequently can't focus on elevating the overall quality of their applications. Such incompatibilities are what drive otherwise great developers away from the web to more conventional application platforms. The only developers that remain are those who have enormous patience, not those who are necessarily good at development. This has the net affect of slowing down the overall adoption and quality of web applications, not to mention burning out the bravest among us who persist in such endeavors.
About a year ago I lived in an two-bedroom apartment with two other people. My first roommate let the second move in the downstairs living room without consulting me. Eventually I agreed under the condition that the new roommate would pay us $300/mo, of which I'd receive $150. The new roommate turned out to be a total degenerate psychopath, who routinely stole from us and never paid his rent. He was also disposed to episodes of violence, rationalizing his behavior as a type of entertainment at our expense. After about 6 months and a sequence of increasingly severe incidents, I eventually drove him out.
Both my original roommate and I decided from there that we would keep as far away from him as possible, despite having a number of mutual friends. As much as it would have been utter ecstasy to see him in jail, we came to the conclusion that he would eventually destroy himself without our help and left it at that.
Ever since then, said individual has posted numerous messages on Facebook explicitly threatening to murder us. This culminated in a particularly threatening message last week where he stated something to the affect of "we better watch out, he's coming for us." Both myself and my former roommate have decided that despite our desire to remove ourselves from the situation, we cannot ignore it any longer and have contacted a lawyer. Our lawyer has arranged a preliminary hearing next week where we and a number of friends will testify as character witnesses and using his Facebook posts as evidence hopefully can convince a judge to incarcerate him.
Because you generally have to run your own servers which means you need your own domains (or hijack someone else) and DNS/Domains/Servers become very weak point of failure. Not to mention it's easy to discover viruses if you know which server they are connecting to. GTalk and Twitter traffic is pretty indistinguishable from legit traffic and it's easier to hide.
IRC servers are still fairly popular, and there are more than enough of them to exploit. How is using a social-network any less a point-of-failure than IRC? What makes HTTP or UDP any more or less distinguishable than plain old TCP?
Offering a tiered approach will enable providers to offer lower fees to standard websites, and better service to the sites that need it.
This makes sense, but the important fact you're overlooking is that corporations make reasonable arguments to do unreasonable things. By implementing such controls, would it not be ripe for abuse? Is there anyone who thinks that telecoms wouldn't abuse it?
I understand that the internet may in-fact be better off with throttling, prioritization, etc. However, can we really trust corporations to implement this system with the public's best interest in mind?
At the very least, look at it from an economic perspective. What incentive will telecoms have to upgrade their lower tier services when only their priority services make big money? How long before the speed disparity between tiers is so large that the lower tier services are no longer viable(given increasing bandwidth demand)?
I can't possibly agree with this more. This kind of mafia mentality needs to be strictly prohibited. The only thing that consumers can do is vote with their dollars(or pounds).
Slashdot Mirror
It's very common for people to dream of veering off the road or driving from the backseat.
It's very common for people to dream of veering off the road or href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime">driving from the backseat
This is exactly my reasoning because typically IE is the only major browser that misbehaves. Why start by writing a ton of code for a browser that doesn't properly implement DOM/CSS? I save all the ugliness for last rather than build my entire application on a foundation of hacks and work-arounds.
It's simply a matter of my own incompetence? I'd almost be inclined to believe that were it not for the fact that IE routinely breaks despite my code working beautifully in every other browser. In other words - their bad, not mine.
Starting with IE is a good suggestion, I'll just switch to table-based layouts and use strictly decade-old CSS.
Y'know, over a decade and 4 versions - you'd think M$ would have straightened up their implementation of the DOM, especially with increasing and high profile competition from Google. As a web developer, it never ceases to amaze me when I design a web-site that works in nearly every browser *except* IE(any version). I typically have to budget as much(or more) time fixing a site for IE as I spent designing it in the first place. Sometimes I wonder if they're just fucking with us or legitimately writing a browser. If IE doesn't shape up, I'm going to order an army of monkeys to un-install it from every computer of the face of the planet.
I'm confused, if Chrome doesn't do ad-blocking then what's this? Are you saying that AdBlock for chrome is different in some significant way? If yes, please provide a citation.
..securing user data after it's been made public on Google for the world to see forever after does not make up for the poor design, implementation and security..
Neither TFS nor any previous poster said that GroupOn's effective, albeit untimely, response in any way abdicates them from the responsibility for the leak. TFS simply meant that GroupOn's immediate reaction(once they knew what had happened) deserves some consideration.
they shouldn't be in a position of such responsibility in the first place, let alone now
I'm guessing that you mean that if a software developer can't write 100% secure software the first time, said developer shouldn't develop software at all?
the entire management and security team should be replaced
Please correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly, but it seems to me that you're advocating strict government oversight of the entire software industry.
Really? "The Matrix" and "good story" in the same sentence?
The windows and doors are boarded up just the same.
Some low profit margin businesses will not have the option of moving overseas and therefore will resort to further consolidation in order to offset expenses. Either way it will be bad for small to medium sized business.
Mistakes? We don't make mistakes.
I'd bet money that they do. This is a hub of terrorist propaganda as far as authoritarians are concerned.
No, GP really isn't missing the point. The repercussions are justified when the accuser can prove without a shadow of a doubt that such accusations are in-fact true. Doling out punishment simply based on an accusation is not justice. Not to mention that witness testimony itself is known to be incredibly unreliable and inaccurate. And regardless of how serious the accusation is, it is important to incessantly question everything, assume everything is false, and be SKEPTICAL.
If I say, "The moon is falling," this is a VERY serious accusation against the moon, as it might mean the inexorable extinction of every organism on the planet. After making said statement, you then look up at the sky and see doubtless proof that the moon is in-fact still in orbit and ultimately conclude that my statement is false.
Given that scenario, am I then to be hauled off to jail and charged with a felony?
In lieu of a proper education system, our gov't instead "protects" the people from themselves by doling out fines and punishments for inane and pointless bullshit, like making wildly inaccurate and idiotic statements. Oh no, this is super serious because it involves pedophilia - think of the children. Please. These kids are stupid for what they did. The school administrators are stupid for how they responded. And last but not least, society is stupid for blowing defamation out of proportion. Are we all really so narcissistic that someone baselessly calling us names warrants their exile, incarceration or financial ruin?
Biggest kudos to twatface.
Why can't you?
Typical Americans are more interested in football than the downward spiral of society. Not only that but the establishment psychologically condi.. SQUIRREL!
It's not simply the propensity of software to appeal to the lowest-common denominator that drives adoption. Wide-spread adoption enables monopolies which then force otherwise intelligent individuals to make poor decisions.
TL;DR Stupid people ruin it for the rest of us.
Just add an amendment that says every time the government uses a roving wiretap, they have to provide a free abortion to an inner-city teenager. That ought to do the trick.
I fail to see how this will make any difference. Is it not the standard operating procedure of government institutions like Planned Parenthood to doll out as many abortions as possible?
wouldn't it be fair to say that the labor for profit game is antiquated by the propensity of labor to be automated? and by extension, the idea of copyright is rendered obsolete.
While your sentiment is a little premature, I can't agree with you more. The vast number of quirky behaviors in IE makes the task of web development a miserable chore. For that reason, web developers spend more time fighting with their own platform and consequently can't focus on elevating the overall quality of their applications. Such incompatibilities are what drive otherwise great developers away from the web to more conventional application platforms. The only developers that remain are those who have enormous patience, not those who are necessarily good at development. This has the net affect of slowing down the overall adoption and quality of web applications, not to mention burning out the bravest among us who persist in such endeavors.
About a year ago I lived in an two-bedroom apartment with two other people. My first roommate let the second move in the downstairs living room without consulting me. Eventually I agreed under the condition that the new roommate would pay us $300/mo, of which I'd receive $150. The new roommate turned out to be a total degenerate psychopath, who routinely stole from us and never paid his rent. He was also disposed to episodes of violence, rationalizing his behavior as a type of entertainment at our expense. After about 6 months and a sequence of increasingly severe incidents, I eventually drove him out.
Both my original roommate and I decided from there that we would keep as far away from him as possible, despite having a number of mutual friends. As much as it would have been utter ecstasy to see him in jail, we came to the conclusion that he would eventually destroy himself without our help and left it at that.
Ever since then, said individual has posted numerous messages on Facebook explicitly threatening to murder us. This culminated in a particularly threatening message last week where he stated something to the affect of "we better watch out, he's coming for us." Both myself and my former roommate have decided that despite our desire to remove ourselves from the situation, we cannot ignore it any longer and have contacted a lawyer. Our lawyer has arranged a preliminary hearing next week where we and a number of friends will testify as character witnesses and using his Facebook posts as evidence hopefully can convince a judge to incarcerate him.
Because you generally have to run your own servers which means you need your own domains (or hijack someone else) and DNS/Domains/Servers become very weak point of failure. Not to mention it's easy to discover viruses if you know which server they are connecting to. GTalk and Twitter traffic is pretty indistinguishable from legit traffic and it's easier to hide.
IRC servers are still fairly popular, and there are more than enough of them to exploit. How is using a social-network any less a point-of-failure than IRC? What makes HTTP or UDP any more or less distinguishable than plain old TCP?
Who uses Twitter and IRC's ill-repute are irrelevant to the fact that it is useful for hackers.
Twitter is actually good for something after all
Offering a tiered approach will enable providers to offer lower fees to standard websites, and better service to the sites that need it.
This makes sense, but the important fact you're overlooking is that corporations make reasonable arguments to do unreasonable things. By implementing such controls, would it not be ripe for abuse? Is there anyone who thinks that telecoms wouldn't abuse it?
I understand that the internet may in-fact be better off with throttling, prioritization, etc. However, can we really trust corporations to implement this system with the public's best interest in mind?
At the very least, look at it from an economic perspective. What incentive will telecoms have to upgrade their lower tier services when only their priority services make big money? How long before the speed disparity between tiers is so large that the lower tier services are no longer viable(given increasing bandwidth demand)?
I can't possibly agree with this more. This kind of mafia mentality needs to be strictly prohibited. The only thing that consumers can do is vote with their dollars(or pounds).