I think the "dark ages" were when documents required arbitrary and/or proprietary programs and services to be located, transported and displayed. That's the problem the web was invented to overcome, and now you want to go *back* there?
Get your own damned port for Flash/Shockwave/Java applets or whatever other nonsense that amuses those who like bright shiny things. Port 80 is for HTTP and HTML. Maybe XML.
More and more organizations configure their firewall to disallow all this other brain-dead rubbish from being received, and a good thing, too. It's too much of a security risk, and there's no business case for receiving any of it that I've seen.
I'll allow Javascript through, but not everyone does. Of course, more and more Javascript weenies attempt to obfuscate their tags and code so that the firewall can't easily detect it. That's even more obnoxious than spam, and is just causing another arms race.
Really though, if they are spending *millions* on UI R&D you would think, say, Visual Studio would be a whole lot better than it is, just to pick a random example...
Firstly, the two actions, picking up a free newspaper, and releasing banking documents, are not in any way related. These actions can be confused in the situation you describe, but simply cannot be mapped to professionals updating a corporate web site. In the situation under discussion (web publishing) there is nothing else you could have been "intending" to do by putting the file into that directory, unless you didn't know what you were doing, and that's clearly no reason to sue somebody.
Secondly, your analogy doesn't hold another way - you can clearly distinguish between newspapers and banking documents in the real world. To be less broken, your analogy would have to be changed so that the sign read "publically available information", the documents made to all look identical, and the leaver of the "wrong" documents would have to own the stall. Would it then be right for the owner of the documents to sue anyone who read the "wrong" documents on this table? Clearly that would be ridiculous. How could anyone possibly know?
This is yet another case of someone trying to blame others for their own stupidity through the courts. If the legal system has one iota of sense left in it, this will be laughed out of court. And if there were any justice, the bringers of this action would be put into stocks for 24 hours as a deterrent to like-minded clowns.
They published it by putting it into a directory from which the web server could serve up documents. End of story.
The arguments about "but that means burglarly is allowed if you have no security" are completely specious. This has nothing to do with security. Through deliberate action, or even accidentally, they made the document publically available. It's as simple as that.
"The site freedom.gov wishes to set a cookie. Do you want to allow it?"
It's important that the government tracks everyone interested in freedom very carefully, after all.
Why do some sites try to set cookies when there isn't any sensible reason for them doing so, from my POV? I can understand when I actually have some server state to be linked with, but can setting cookies on the main page right away have any credible purpose, apart from tracking?
[ Tangential, not offtopic, but this is my final comment. Promise:) ]
Outline of the problems with the chiropratic "science".
Basically, it was invented by a con-man, has never been proven (no-one has ever even *seen* a "subluxation", or demonstrated any kind of "spinal adjustment" ie. measurable change), and it's absolutely appalling that tax dollars go into it. What next, faith healing?
When the bubble burst and hyndreds of dot.coms went out of business, the Admins, programmers and web-designers all got axed
Really? No programmers I know did. But we are all working for real companies. Not stupid shit like dynomall.com.
An "internet shopping community" is the very definition of lame dotcom, by the way. You could of at least had an original thought.
But please tell us all how difficult (X)HTML is and how one must have a deep understanding of such a simple markup language as well as it's "original intent."
Looking at your sites, it's all clearly too much for you. Free clue: don't use tables to do layout.
This must be part of your 1998 fetish. Wake up and smell the coffee, WinXP has been out for over a year now and it is MORE stable than Linux running X and a heavy desktop like KDE
I don't take OS advice from "web developers", who wouldn't know the first thing about OS design and implementation.
Go back to your Javascript, thanks. That's about your speed.
If the movie is worth seeing on the big screen ie "The Two Towers", I'll go. If not I'll either rent or buy it on DVD. The n month wait doesn't change anything.
In fact, the studios lose money, as n months later they've lost the benefit of all that hyping they did for the release. I'll probably have forgotten all about it by then.
So, is this just a racket to protect an outdated business model? Is there any *good* reason for it, as in good for the consumer? Why can't I have the choice?
Because they claim that you have lower support costs, as you can cheaply employ a bunch of uneducated people willing to take lower pay, as they are basically unskilled labor, to do support.
Of course, if something really goes wrong, and "rebooting" doesn't help, you're doomed, but they don't factor that into their TCO.
And out of a job when their bosses read the book!!!!
"When"?
Most already were out of a job when the bubble burst and everyone went back to whatever career path they had in 1996. Hence the misleading stats for computing related job-losses. How many of these are *really* computing, and how many just "putting up web pages", in most cases just lame filler while the MBAs searched in vain for a business model?
How many "web designers" do I know looking for work? Plenty. How many engineers, sysadmins, and so forth? Not one. Obviously, a skewed sample, but there it is.
There won't need to be a BSOD generator, as you get that free with every copy of Windows.
However, perhaps an open-source version would be welcome, as then we could make *sure* that our BSODs happened correctly and as expected, ensure corruption of important OS files, and are definitely unpredictable (ie. truly random), and so forth.
[If you're a Windows weenie or MS shill considering replying, "It's stable, it's secure, it's efficient, you need to use it the *right* way and not upset it (ie it's fragile), blah, blah, fucking blah", please don't bother]
It's getting closer every day, it would seem. Wasn't there some sort of clause in the dotnet EULA that you *wouldn't* work on a competing implementation?
So, if the PHB decided to go dotnet for some reason (probably due to an article in a glossy magazine), and you get no choice in the matter, and you happen to be working on Mono, you're hosed.
I guess it's all in the interpretation of this idea of "agreement". If I have no say, how have I "agreed"? I could quit, but don't people have a basic right to make a living?
And then there's the interpretation of "end user". If my company chooses and buys software, and employs me to use it *for* them, am I bound by the agreement? Am I necessarily the "end user"? Could roadside workers be bound by the EULAs of their shovels?
And what if I don't install it, and never see the agreement, much less click on, "I agree to give up my firstborn"? I can see a distopian future in which people, as a profession, go around installing software with onerous EULAs and thereby take all these ridiculous clauses onto themselves only. And then whole companies could exists to provide that service. Legal firewalling, you might call it;)
And what about people who don't even realize or even care what software they are using to get their jobs done? For example, people at call-centers that may be using software with an MS EULA that forbids them from, say, using a PS2;)
Slashdot Mirror
If the site is not presenting itself in a professional manner
Like ispelunker.com? Is this professional, or some sort of joke?
then a second rate website will be considered to have second rate content
And you're somewhat of an expert on second rate web sites, that's for sure.
Go back to your real estate web site and changing backup tapes. Thanks.
Port 80 is for HTML only? Don't tell the porn industry!
Originally, there weren't any images in "the web". However, now image support is officially part of HTML.
It seems like your rant is mostly about being a lazy firewall administrator
Going to extra effort to increase security is lazy? Interesting.
I'd say piggybacking your ill-conceived rubbish off HTTP, instead of creating your own system on your own port registered with the IETF, was lazy.
"Dark ages"?
I think the "dark ages" were when documents required arbitrary and/or proprietary programs and services to be located, transported and displayed. That's the problem the web was invented to overcome, and now you want to go *back* there?
Get your own damned port for Flash/Shockwave/Java applets or whatever other nonsense that amuses those who like bright shiny things. Port 80 is for HTTP and HTML. Maybe XML.
More and more organizations configure their firewall to disallow all this other brain-dead rubbish from being received, and a good thing, too. It's too much of a security risk, and there's no business case for receiving any of it that I've seen.
I'll allow Javascript through, but not everyone does. Of course, more and more Javascript weenies attempt to obfuscate their tags and code so that the firewall can't easily detect it. That's even more obnoxious than spam, and is just causing another arms race.
I'm not familiar with KDevelop, but if it imitates Visual Studio in any way it will be just as unusable and useless.
s/Microsoft/Apple/g;i crosoft/g;
;)
...
s/KDE/Microsoft/g;
s/OSS/M
That's better
Really though, if they are spending *millions* on UI R&D you would think, say, Visual Studio would be a whole lot better than it is, just to pick a random example
"Visual Basic programmer"
Your analogy is badly broken.
Firstly, the two actions, picking up a free newspaper, and releasing banking documents, are not in any way related. These actions can be confused in the situation you describe, but simply cannot be mapped to professionals updating a corporate web site. In the situation under discussion (web publishing) there is nothing else you could have been "intending" to do by putting the file into that directory, unless you didn't know what you were doing, and that's clearly no reason to sue somebody.
Secondly, your analogy doesn't hold another way - you can clearly distinguish between newspapers and banking documents in the real world. To be less broken, your analogy would have to be changed so that the sign read "publically available information", the documents made to all look identical, and the leaver of the "wrong" documents would have to own the stall. Would it then be right for the owner of the documents to sue anyone who read the "wrong" documents on this table? Clearly that would be ridiculous. How could anyone possibly know?
This is yet another case of someone trying to blame others for their own stupidity through the courts. If the legal system has one iota of sense left in it, this will be laughed out of court. And if there were any justice, the bringers of this action would be put into stocks for 24 hours as a deterrent to like-minded clowns.
"Windows 2000 Professional"
GO AHEAD AND MAKE A SUPER OPTIMIZED PET SHOP APPLICATION ON THE PLATFORM OF YOUR CHOICE
Okay, say my platform of choice is Solaris or HPUX. DotNet is not available there. DotNet loses. End of story.
This is clearly ridiculous.
They published it by putting it into a directory from which the web server could serve up documents. End of story.
The arguments about "but that means burglarly is allowed if you have no security" are completely specious. This has nothing to do with security. Through deliberate action, or even accidentally, they made the document publically available. It's as simple as that.
It's not really a question of security.
They published the document by putting it in a directory that the web server could access. They made it available. They took an action to release it.
as others have stated, it's just a session ID. check the cookie yourself
:)
I was just pointing out the irony of it all - freedom.gov setting cookies for no reason, which is an action associated with tracking and profiling.
But now I'd like to know why you think a "session ID" is just fine. I don't think it's in any way necessary for this site.
And yes, I agree it's just some lame deployment, not a conspiracy
nothing to see here, move along
Your conspiracy theory auto-detector-and-refuter threshold is set too low.
have you tried asking them why they set it?
:)
No way!! That'll get me tagged as being a terrorist for sure!
I go to the freedom.gov site, and get:
"The site freedom.gov wishes to set a cookie. Do you want to allow it?"
It's important that the government tracks everyone interested in freedom very carefully, after all.
Why do some sites try to set cookies when there isn't any sensible reason for them doing so, from my POV? I can understand when I actually have some server state to be linked with, but can setting cookies on the main page right away have any credible purpose, apart from tracking?
If it has made some self-styled "web developers" actually learn about the technologies they are using, it would have had some direct benefit.
[ Tangential, not offtopic, but this is my final comment. Promise :) ]
Outline of the problems with the chiropratic "science".
Basically, it was invented by a con-man, has never been proven (no-one has ever even *seen* a "subluxation", or demonstrated any kind of "spinal adjustment" ie. measurable change), and it's absolutely appalling that tax dollars go into it. What next, faith healing?
Does anyone know a good Chiropractor!?!
There's no such thing. Chiropractic theory is junk science. "Adjustments" indeed.
It is to laugh.
When the bubble burst and hyndreds of dot.coms went out of business, the Admins, programmers and web-designers all got axed
Really? No programmers I know did. But we are all working for real companies. Not stupid shit like dynomall.com.
An "internet shopping community" is the very definition of lame dotcom, by the way. You could of at least had an original thought.
But please tell us all how difficult (X)HTML is and how one must have a deep understanding of such a simple markup language as well as it's "original intent."
Looking at your sites, it's all clearly too much for you. Free clue: don't use tables to do layout.
This must be part of your 1998 fetish. Wake up and smell the coffee, WinXP has been out for over a year now and it is MORE stable than Linux running X and a heavy desktop like KDE
I don't take OS advice from "web developers", who wouldn't know the first thing about OS design and implementation.
Go back to your Javascript, thanks. That's about your speed.
If the movie is worth seeing on the big screen ie "The Two Towers", I'll go. If not I'll either rent or buy it on DVD. The n month wait doesn't change anything.
In fact, the studios lose money, as n months later they've lost the benefit of all that hyping they did for the release. I'll probably have forgotten all about it by then.
So, is this just a racket to protect an outdated business model? Is there any *good* reason for it, as in good for the consumer? Why can't I have the choice?
Because they claim that you have lower support costs, as you can cheaply employ a bunch of uneducated people willing to take lower pay, as they are basically unskilled labor, to do support.
Of course, if something really goes wrong, and "rebooting" doesn't help, you're doomed, but they don't factor that into their TCO.
And out of a job when their bosses read the book!!!!
"When"?
Most already were out of a job when the bubble burst and everyone went back to whatever career path they had in 1996. Hence the misleading stats for computing related job-losses. How many of these are *really* computing, and how many just "putting up web pages", in most cases just lame filler while the MBAs searched in vain for a business model?
How many "web designers" do I know looking for work? Plenty. How many engineers, sysadmins, and so forth? Not one. Obviously, a skewed sample, but there it is.
There won't need to be a BSOD generator, as you get that free with every copy of Windows.
However, perhaps an open-source version would be welcome, as then we could make *sure* that our BSODs happened correctly and as expected, ensure corruption of important OS files, and are definitely unpredictable (ie. truly random), and so forth.
[If you're a Windows weenie or MS shill considering replying, "It's stable, it's secure, it's efficient, you need to use it the *right* way and not upset it (ie it's fragile), blah, blah, fucking blah", please don't bother]
10. VirusPropagator 0.2
9. NewVirusGenerator 0.1.1
8. VirusDetector 0.0.3
7. DRMBreak 4.2
6. AutoUpdateBlocking 3.5
5. GenerateNewLicenseAfterReconfig 4.6
4. PutTheRegistryBackIntoSaneState 2.2
3. RebootForSixthTimeToday 1.6
2. PutOSBackIntoSaneStateAfterItCorruptsOwnFiles 7.8
1. EraseHardDriveInstallRealOS 1.0
I wonder at the legality of this
;)
;)
It's getting closer every day, it would seem. Wasn't there some sort of clause in the dotnet EULA that you *wouldn't* work on a competing implementation?
So, if the PHB decided to go dotnet for some reason (probably due to an article in a glossy magazine), and you get no choice in the matter, and you happen to be working on Mono, you're hosed.
I guess it's all in the interpretation of this idea of "agreement". If I have no say, how have I "agreed"? I could quit, but don't people have a basic right to make a living?
And then there's the interpretation of "end user". If my company chooses and buys software, and employs me to use it *for* them, am I bound by the agreement? Am I necessarily the "end user"? Could roadside workers be bound by the EULAs of their shovels?
And what if I don't install it, and never see the agreement, much less click on, "I agree to give up my firstborn"? I can see a distopian future in which people, as a profession, go around installing software with onerous EULAs and thereby take all these ridiculous clauses onto themselves only. And then whole companies could exists to provide that service. Legal firewalling, you might call it
And what about people who don't even realize or even care what software they are using to get their jobs done? For example, people at call-centers that may be using software with an MS EULA that forbids them from, say, using a PS2