All very valid caveats. My core point (which you also addresses) was that using a working copy instead of an export of the files puts tons of extra copies of your files and subversion management data under you don't need for web pages.
I do love the atomicity of your method however, and the trick of exporting from a working copy made my day. Thanks!
I need a "DNS entry" or "config file" or something similarly trivial replaced. It's none of your fucking business why I want it. Just fucking do it.
And changing such "trivial" things as a DNS entry or a config file will never cause any serious problems that the aforementioned IT janitor would have to clean up after, right?
Probably, but personally I have no clue. I'm not actually a Hulu user, or even care enough to do more than read the/. article.
Sorry about that. I was mostly just trying to explain the silliness of hiding the important bits behind "sekrit" code which you don't/can't actually keep secret.
The web browser displays HTML, which is easily displayable and copyable.
It can also run javascript, a programming language that runs inside the web browser and can easily access the web page you are viewing.
In order to "hide" the HTML they are sending your web browser, they instead encode it and send you a page which only has the encoded version and some javascript.
When the browser runs the javascript, that script decodes the HTML and sticks it in the page.
Net results: using View Source in the web browser only shows the encoded HTML.
Reason why it's stupid: Anyone can run the javascript and decode it. The only people who couldn't get around this with the most trivial of effort wouldn't be using the HTML in ways Hulu disapproved of in the first place. It's kinda like using a European keyboard on a US computer in an attempt to stop people from using it. Anybody who can type can still see the letters on the keys. The people who only used the mouse to control the music player aren't going to be able to do weird stuff with your computer anyway.
While entertaining, and relevant, this analogy does miss a couple important pieces:
You don't give examples for the income of the drinkers. If the tenth guy makes a million dollars a month and the ninth makes a hundred dollars a month, it changes the perspective.
Also, you're ignoring the scale of costs. If the tenth guy has enough money to buy pretty much all the beer he wants, even AFTER he pays for everybody else's drinks, why is he worried about the bill?
Finally, the risk of having the tenth guy leave is always risk. But if he doesn't help pay the bill, it's the same risk. If the nine guys have to buy cheaper beer or share fewer beers, that's what they can afford. It doesn't change the core idea that the cost should be split equitably, rather than literally equally. That is, you measure the burden based on it's impact to a person, not on some abstract idea.
I let little old ladies on the bus first. Why? because it's harder for them to stand around than it is for me due to the relative ages.
If we were being equal, they'd have to wait like anybody else. I think it's better to be equitable and respect that standing around a little longer is cheap for me and expensive for them.
I suppose the argument that you shouldn't attack rich people for percentage tax breaks because you don't understand how percentages work is a good one, and like I said, I like the analogy, but I feel like it isn't accurate in some important ways.
1.) IE 8 is still in Beta. I'm sure most folks remember what that means. As in not quite feature complete yet?
Sure, but I don't see the relevance of that here. The idea of a beta is to try out what it WILL be like, therefore the defaults you see are the ones we can expect for the release. Also, the broken page icon is probable "feature complete" in this sense.
2.) If people bothered to take a few minutes to read, you would see that it only impacts INTRANET sites, people do understand what that means correct?
You're absolutely right that this wasn't made as clear as it should be by the article summary, and that people generally don't read.
But I wouldn't downplay the intranet aspect that much.
Yes, all the web standards folks like me would dance a little dance of glee to see everyone ELSE who keeps making broken sites have to do a little work for a change (which they would if the intranet sites DIDN'T default to compatibility mode), but there's a larger issue here.
The "compatibility" is really "it's okay if you keep doing it wrong". It's fine if you NEED to use the older, incorrect way of doing things, as long as it's an active decision!
Are the developers going to learn new ways and use *new tools* from what they used for their intranet to make their external sites? Not likely. This means more PUBLICLY broken pages.
Also, in an INTRANET environment the company, by definition, CONTROLS everything. It's not like the change you need to make to existing sites is complicated. It's one more line in the header. Of all the places a company CAN make this change, it's internally.
Also, leaving this "compatibility" mode on by default for internal sites will BREAK standards compliant pages developed for intranet use.
Microsoft has made some short term benefit decisions with IE whose long term results are coming home to roost. Encouraging developers to keep doing things in a broken way that also breaks future development isn't the way to go and it IS going back on their word.
So having anything start the program except me clicking on it is infringing? Guess I better not have in it my Startup folder, eh?
Sorry.. this still seems ridiculous to me.
As long as a page remains compliant to its declared doctype, not using a given feature very much amounts to handicapping the author in favor of the reader.
Just so you know, the purpose of a web page is to provide something to the reader, not the author. So, uhm, yes... you ARE asking the author to go through more effort or to make choices that benefit the reader. That's kind of the point.
(P.S. "Wanting to break wget" is pointless security through obscurity and "because it might change in response" is pretending the web isn't RESTful. It is. Get over it or use something else.)
OK, got it now. But why is the guy in charge of the Doesn't-Suck format talking up the Sucks format? Is someone paying him or is he on crack or what?
Now *THAT* is the question of the hour. And while there's tons of discussion, I don't think anybody really has a definitive answer for that one. At least, I know I don't.
...I still am at a loss to grasp the concept of the success or failure of one, proprietery file format directly affecting the success or failure(!?) of one which has not only been accepted as an ISO standard, but also one which is openly and fully documented and licenced for all to use for its intended purpose with little or no restriction?
Someone care to explain that to me in words of one syllable?
If format A is (by whatever definition) awesome, and format B is (by whatever definition) sucky, then one way to help People-In-Charge make the right choices is to recommend they use formats which meet the "Doesn't Suck Standard". This is easier than trying to teach a Person-In-Charge about the technical details, which is a) not their job, and b) like teaching a pig to sing. (It doesn't work and annoys the pig.)
Format A, being awesome, get approved by the "Doesn't Suck Standard", but Product-We-Currently-Use doesn't support format A. So, Guy-Who-Sells-Product-We-Use, scrambles to get format B rubber-stamped as meeting the "Doesn't Suck Standard", even though format B sucks, so no sales are lost.
Now, despite the standard, People-In-Charge will stick with Product-We-Currently-Use's sucky format B, because it somehow meets the "Doesn't Suck Standard", even though it sucks. So, now you have to try and TEACH the People-In-Charge about all the technical details as to why format B is sucky (previously mentioned as a really bad idea), but it's even MORE difficult, because you can't even say "but it sucks" anymore since it's got a big stamp that says it doesn't on it. You can try and talk abotu how the big rummer stamp is fake, but that only adds more of the complicated details of the issue People-In-Charge pay you to not bother them with in the first place.
deal with it as reality, not ignore it and engage in wish-thinking.
Agreed.
Not sure what the answer is, but it's a question scientists should be investigating, rather than just assuming they know the answer, or ignoring the problem.
For me, the main thing I feel like people active about this issue don't get is the need (at least to me) for a two part approach. First, scientists need to stop ignoring that how they present information matters and adapt to the audience. Second, scientists also need to improve society (I can only presume through education) so that people in general can become more effective decision makers.
It's not that either of these are such new ideas for me, but that I rarely see people acknowledging the need for both. (By effective decisions I mean decisions that are more likely to result in what they want as an outcome.)
Too many scientists think that the average person is just like them; present the public with the data and the theories and they'll make the right decision.
Exactly. The fact that the public DOESN'T behave that way is what the previous post is (or at least what I am) saying is a very sad state of affairs.
I'm not saying everyone should be a lab-coat wearing physicist, but I am disheartened that given the option, the general public makes decisions based on how the option and/or its presenter make them feel regardless of whether or not those are significant factors in the outcomes from the choice they make.
(The ironic part is that I'm sitting here trying to figure out a less cumbersome way to explain that previous sentence so people don't ignore the content and just form an opinion about this post based on side factors like the number of digits in my UID or something.)
And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere. Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing. Actually, in McDonalds' case, they have the right to refuse service on any grounds, including once that are considered illegal in other realms such as housing and employment. You can restrict whom you sell your stuff too all you want though.
Apple's iCal Server is Open Source Python (with Twisted Framework) and based on the new CalDAV open standard. (It's probably an innocent slip of the brain, but figured I'd mention it for anybody unfamiliar with the tech so they don't get confused.)
While I don't truly doubt most of the claims of the article, in the link to "embarrassing" sets available now, there is one example which does seem to include the things he complains are missing (e.g. alcohol burner, sulfur): http://www.discoverthis.com/chem-c3000.html
Of course, it's also the most expensive item there, and the others do look pretty smarmy and pathetic. Still, while it looks like there is a "war on science" here, it doesn't seem to be completely lost yet.
Is that all there is? I ride motorcycles, play music and teach Hapkido. Among a dozen or so other things. [...] I was just venting a little frustration.
Oh I have a variety of interests, and I'm not surprised you're frustrated. I certainly would be in your position. I just wanted you to know that the bad example you're seeing in your son-in-law isn't the only, or even a common, occurrence.
To keep this more on topic, I'd actually say that your son-in-law could show the need for a better system. If it's trivially easy for a game to get rated mature, then the meaning of the rating gets diluted. It's harder to say "Can't you see kids shouldn't be watching you play games rated Mature?" if no one has reason to keep much faith in the values of the ratings to begin with.
That said, I'd though I'd just say hello so you can say you've met me.
Just so you know:
1) I'm a gamer. 2) I'm in my 30s. 3) I do not have serious problems in my emotional development.
I can say this because:
1) I consider video games one of my primary hobbies and interests. 2) I'm 32 years old. 3) The psychological evaluation I received says such. (I may have a touch of obsessive compulsive disorder, but my emotional development is fine to above average for my age.)
I don't expect you to care, but I would ask that you spend your time dealing with your obviously more important problems instead of making negative implications about the character of us for which this is an issue.
Kevin Zuccato, head of the Australian High Tech Crime Centre in Canberra, says terrorists can gain training in games such as World of Warcraft in a simulated environment, using weapons that are identical to real-world armaments.
I'm afraid the article lost all credibility with me after reading that bit.
And honestly how many of you guys use a password like YwMCU07D?
My passwords are more complicated than that, actually, since I'm assuming you are using the question mark as punctuation rather than part of the password.
Slashdot Mirror
Well put, my good sir. And, for the record, that "graphical representation" can easily be just as much a mess of spaghetti as any other type of code.
All very valid caveats. My core point (which you also addresses) was that using a working copy instead of an export of the files puts tons of extra copies of your files and subversion management data under you don't need for web pages.
I do love the atomicity of your method however, and the trick of exporting from a working copy made my day. Thanks!
Deployment to live servers via SVN checkout when the time comes
Side note: I humbly suggest (as someone else mentioned elsewhere) you use export instead of checkout for the live deployments.
And changing such "trivial" things as a DNS entry or a config file will never cause any serious problems that the aforementioned IT janitor would have to clean up after, right?
Probably, but personally I have no clue. I'm not actually a Hulu user, or even care enough to do more than read the /. article.
Sorry about that. I was mostly just trying to explain the silliness of hiding the important bits behind "sekrit" code which you don't/can't actually keep secret.
General theory for you:
The web browser displays HTML, which is easily displayable and copyable.
It can also run javascript, a programming language that runs inside the web browser and can easily access the web page you are viewing.
In order to "hide" the HTML they are sending your web browser, they instead encode it and send you a page which only has the encoded version and some javascript.
When the browser runs the javascript, that script decodes the HTML and sticks it in the page.
Net results: using View Source in the web browser only shows the encoded HTML.
Reason why it's stupid: Anyone can run the javascript and decode it. The only people who couldn't get around this with the most trivial of effort wouldn't be using the HTML in ways Hulu disapproved of in the first place. It's kinda like using a European keyboard on a US computer in an attempt to stop people from using it. Anybody who can type can still see the letters on the keys. The people who only used the mouse to control the music player aren't going to be able to do weird stuff with your computer anyway.
Reviewing the Network Neutrality Squad mailing list (http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/maillist.html) supports the above statements archives also shows a certain propensity for vitrol.
While entertaining, and relevant, this analogy does miss a couple important pieces:
You don't give examples for the income of the drinkers. If the tenth guy makes a million dollars a month and the ninth makes a hundred dollars a month, it changes the perspective.
Also, you're ignoring the scale of costs. If the tenth guy has enough money to buy pretty much all the beer he wants, even AFTER he pays for everybody else's drinks, why is he worried about the bill?
Finally, the risk of having the tenth guy leave is always risk. But if he doesn't help pay the bill, it's the same risk. If the nine guys have to buy cheaper beer or share fewer beers, that's what they can afford. It doesn't change the core idea that the cost should be split equitably, rather than literally equally. That is, you measure the burden based on it's impact to a person, not on some abstract idea.
I let little old ladies on the bus first. Why? because it's harder for them to stand around than it is for me due to the relative ages.
If we were being equal, they'd have to wait like anybody else. I think it's better to be equitable and respect that standing around a little longer is cheap for me and expensive for them.
I suppose the argument that you shouldn't attack rich people for percentage tax breaks because you don't understand how percentages work is a good one, and like I said, I like the analogy, but I feel like it isn't accurate in some important ways.
1.) IE 8 is still in Beta. I'm sure most folks remember what that means. As in not quite feature complete yet?
Sure, but I don't see the relevance of that here. The idea of a beta is to try out what it WILL be like, therefore the defaults you see are the ones we can expect for the release. Also, the broken page icon is probable "feature complete" in this sense.
2.) If people bothered to take a few minutes to read, you would see that it only impacts INTRANET sites, people do understand what that means correct?
You're absolutely right that this wasn't made as clear as it should be by the article summary, and that people generally don't read.
But I wouldn't downplay the intranet aspect that much.
Yes, all the web standards folks like me would dance a little dance of glee to see everyone ELSE who keeps making broken sites have to do a little work for a change (which they would if the intranet sites DIDN'T default to compatibility mode), but there's a larger issue here.
The "compatibility" is really "it's okay if you keep doing it wrong". It's fine if you NEED to use the older, incorrect way of doing things, as long as it's an active decision!
Are the developers going to learn new ways and use *new tools* from what they used for their intranet to make their external sites? Not likely. This means more PUBLICLY broken pages.
Also, in an INTRANET environment the company, by definition, CONTROLS everything. It's not like the change you need to make to existing sites is complicated. It's one more line in the header. Of all the places a company CAN make this change, it's internally.
Also, leaving this "compatibility" mode on by default for internal sites will BREAK standards compliant pages developed for intranet use.
Microsoft has made some short term benefit decisions with IE whose long term results are coming home to roost. Encouraging developers to keep doing things in a broken way that also breaks future development isn't the way to go and it IS going back on their word.
So having anything start the program except me clicking on it is infringing? Guess I better not have in it my Startup folder, eh? Sorry.. this still seems ridiculous to me.
Just so you know, the purpose of a web page is to provide something to the reader, not the author. So, uhm, yes... you ARE asking the author to go through more effort or to make choices that benefit the reader. That's kind of the point.
(P.S. "Wanting to break wget" is pointless security through obscurity and "because it might change in response" is pretending the web isn't RESTful. It is. Get over it or use something else.)
Now *THAT* is the question of the hour. And while there's tons of discussion, I don't think anybody really has a definitive answer for that one. At least, I know I don't.
...I still am at a loss to grasp the concept of the success or failure of one, proprietery file format directly affecting the success or failure(!?) of one which has not only been accepted as an ISO standard, but also one which is openly and fully documented and licenced for all to use for its intended purpose with little or no restriction? Someone care to explain that to me in words of one syllable?If format A is (by whatever definition) awesome, and format B is (by whatever definition) sucky, then one way to help People-In-Charge make the right choices is to recommend they use formats which meet the "Doesn't Suck Standard". This is easier than trying to teach a Person-In-Charge about the technical details, which is a) not their job, and b) like teaching a pig to sing. (It doesn't work and annoys the pig.)
Format A, being awesome, get approved by the "Doesn't Suck Standard", but Product-We-Currently-Use doesn't support format A. So, Guy-Who-Sells-Product-We-Use, scrambles to get format B rubber-stamped as meeting the "Doesn't Suck Standard", even though format B sucks, so no sales are lost.
Now, despite the standard, People-In-Charge will stick with Product-We-Currently-Use's sucky format B, because it somehow meets the "Doesn't Suck Standard", even though it sucks. So, now you have to try and TEACH the People-In-Charge about all the technical details as to why format B is sucky (previously mentioned as a really bad idea), but it's even MORE difficult, because you can't even say "but it sucks" anymore since it's got a big stamp that says it doesn't on it. You can try and talk abotu how the big rummer stamp is fake, but that only adds more of the complicated details of the issue People-In-Charge pay you to not bother them with in the first place.
That help any?
Agreed.
Not sure what the answer is, but it's a question scientists should be investigating, rather than just assuming they know the answer, or ignoring the problem.For me, the main thing I feel like people active about this issue don't get is the need (at least to me) for a two part approach. First, scientists need to stop ignoring that how they present information matters and adapt to the audience. Second, scientists also need to improve society (I can only presume through education) so that people in general can become more effective decision makers.
It's not that either of these are such new ideas for me, but that I rarely see people acknowledging the need for both. (By effective decisions I mean decisions that are more likely to result in what they want as an outcome.)
Exactly. The fact that the public DOESN'T behave that way is what the previous post is (or at least what I am) saying is a very sad state of affairs.
I'm not saying everyone should be a lab-coat wearing physicist, but I am disheartened that given the option, the general public makes decisions based on how the option and/or its presenter make them feel regardless of whether or not those are significant factors in the outcomes from the choice they make.
(The ironic part is that I'm sitting here trying to figure out a less cumbersome way to explain that previous sentence so people don't ignore the content and just form an opinion about this post based on side factors like the number of digits in my UID or something.)
Here's a couple books that should help you out.:
I've not seen it, but I've heard that the film 'Who Killed the Electric Car' makes quite a solid case against most of the claims you have here.
While the film itself is also pretty controversial, it does, IMHO, seems like the US is almost suspiciously behind the power curve when it comes to making electric city cars.
While I don't truly doubt most of the claims of the article, in the link to "embarrassing" sets available now, there is one example which does seem to include the things he complains are missing (e.g. alcohol burner, sulfur): http://www.discoverthis.com/chem-c3000.html
Of course, it's also the most expensive item there, and the others do look pretty smarmy and pathetic. Still, while it looks like there is a "war on science" here, it doesn't seem to be completely lost yet.
Oh I have a variety of interests, and I'm not surprised you're frustrated. I certainly would be in your position. I just wanted you to know that the bad example you're seeing in your son-in-law isn't the only, or even a common, occurrence.
To keep this more on topic, I'd actually say that your son-in-law could show the need for a better system. If it's trivially easy for a game to get rated mature, then the meaning of the rating gets diluted. It's harder to say "Can't you see kids shouldn't be watching you play games rated Mature?" if no one has reason to keep much faith in the values of the ratings to begin with.
I'm sorry to hear about your son in law.
That said, I'd though I'd just say hello so you can say you've met me.
Just so you know:
1) I'm a gamer.
2) I'm in my 30s.
3) I do not have serious problems in my emotional development.
I can say this because:
1) I consider video games one of my primary hobbies and interests.
2) I'm 32 years old.
3) The psychological evaluation I received says such. (I may have a touch of obsessive compulsive disorder, but my emotional development is fine to above average for my age.)
I don't expect you to care, but I would ask that you spend your time dealing with your obviously more important problems instead of making negative implications about the character of us for which this is an issue.
Thanks.
From TFA (emphasis added):
I'm afraid the article lost all credibility with me after reading that bit.
He's got a point, mate. ;)
My passwords are more complicated than that, actually, since I'm assuming you are using the question mark as punctuation rather than part of the password.