The Register hates Wikipedia and at every opportunity seeks to spin the tiniest thing into major news that is negative about Wikipedia.
The Reg hates Wikipedia for the simple reason that it's shit dressed up as the Second Coming. This story, like many others, simply reveals the hypocracy and bullshit that pass for normal administration at the site.
Your response is a classic "news fatigue" one: when evidence piles up for months or years and nothing is ever done to fix the problem eventually people just stop listening or rationalise it away rather than listen to any more bad news no matter how accurate it is (see: Global Warming).
I'm not sure where in that post you pointed out the inaccuracies in the Reg's coverage, but perhaps you hit "submit" by mistake before reaching that part.
Would be if ISPs bothered to block the botnets. I mean, it must be pretty obvious to an ISP when a botnet lights up on their customers' computers, mustn't it? So ban the users from connecting and when they scream tell them to get their computers cleaned up before trying to mix with the Internet society. And no refunds.
But what's more relevant is whether really smart people who know the algorithm can find fault with it.
I have to say that that is the dumbest remark about software design I've ever heard. I've worked with lots of really smart people and I've seen them all miss bugs that were obvious to other people. Wolfram recently missed an error in a proof, for example.
It's more useful to have a lot of reasonably smart people look at something than have TWO (2) supposedly "really smart" people.
But, anyway, spam is a solved issue for me - I use greylisting and get maybe 1 spam per week. I can imagine a system that reduces that to 1 per month but I don't care enough to go out of my way to install such a system. Greylisting maintained that level of protection at the start of last year where I had over a million attempted deliveries over a six month period, so I just don't see the need for anything more complex.
Plus, I don't have to spend ANY time managing my email on most days, with a peak of activity on a day when spam gets through of having to press "delete".
Exactly how we incorporate that input into spam scoring has not been publicly disclosed.
Then its worthless. You're asking us to trust that YOU will find the holes and fix them before the spammers find them and exploit them. No deal; I don't care how smart your friends are, a botnet getting updated with an exploit for your private project would be a nightmare and I can't fix it if it happens while you're in bed or on holiday.
The iPhone's sitting on shelves in the UK at least; retailers can't get rid of them and sales have been something like 1/3rd of Apple's projections. Is that "success" nowadays?
The http prefix only speaks for transport (not content)
And what does the ht in http stand for?
and the HTML tag doesn't indicate version,
Which it should. It's the natural place for it.
More importantly though, HTML is an SGML application; the document type declaration is a fundamental requirement.
It's not fundimental in any way. HTML is a defined system (in several versions) and the fact that it is declared as HTML at the top specifically for use by programs which understand HTML is enough if the version is added to the tag. Plus, calling it an SGML application is a later rationalisation. It was inspired by SGML but it was later that efforts were made to trim off the edges to make it really SGML compatable - a goal of absolutely no importance to anyone anywhere ever. T.B.L. rarely mentions SGML and I've never seen him cite it as important beyond the idea of using tags to indicate sections of the text.
If you don't like DOCTYPE you need to go back in time about twenty years and argue with the ISO committee.
If the ISO committee's opinion mattered we wouldn't have to worry about testing our code on different browsers:(. HTML's practise has always been more important than its theory and will continue to do so as long as the market is dominated by a company that does not care about standards and the committees are staffed with people who have no interest in practical requirements.
This is not to say that I didn't make a complete tool of myself with the original post, of course.
Erm, you do realize DOCTYPE was in original HTML draft published in 1993, before the W3C existed and almost five years before XML existed, right?
Err... might do.
Why the hell did it suddenly start appearing everywhere from about the time of HTML v4, then? Strange.
Either way the combination of mime-type, HTML tag, and http:/// prefix pretty well tells the web browser what sort of content it is, and DOCTYPE is an unwelcome appendage.
Elimination of DOCTYPES in favor of a version attribute to the html tag is just semantics, and kind of silly.
No, it's a bug-fix.
Introducting Doctype instead of just adding a version attribute to HTML was more than silly - it was stupid and a sure sign that the W3C committee had been take over by "XML for everything" donkey wabs.
They presented what appears to be sound research before they decided they'd had done enough "serious" work and then descended into the depth of tabloid journalism by presenting what appear to be spurious and lurid claims about the individual in their "case study."
Gee, you mean like a tabloid might make if such details were "accidently" leaked to them in, say, the run-up to an election? You still don't think they were making a valid point? I would ask if you needed a map drawn, but you already had and apparently that wasn't enough.
You're missing the point completely. Other people will be using "data mining" of this sort, and making serious decisions about whether you support terrorism, or are just generally not a "good citizen", and they won't be revealing their judgments to the public to let them know what might be going on.
My father was a coal miner and while you're correct in you assumption about his physical condition don't be too sure about what they get paid. Sure, early on last century it was scrub work but in the last few decades it's turned into a good paying job
Sorry, I should have said: I'm in the UK. There's no coal mining here anymore so I'm thinking back more than a couple of decades - hence the past tense. I'm glad your dad's getting a good wage, though.
Coal miners rarely gave a damn about their diet, exercised a lot and tended not to be paid enough to over-eat. They were thin, on the whole. There's millions of people who's jobs force them to exercise and eat normally and the vast majority of them are not fat. There's also millions who eat normally, sit in their offices all day, drive home and sit at home all night. A surprisingly large number of them are overweight.
None of whom ever leave their mother's basements and the $200,000 of equipment they've bought on the recommendation of Hi-Fi magazines over the years and which they are now too old (25+) to actually hear any difference from.
Actually, they're fascist. They only say they're socialist, rather like East Germany called itself Democratic.
Well, I guess some companies are run by morons because no matter how bleeding heart liberal you are, you should remember Tiananmen Square.
Sadly, no one who believes in Capitalism cares about Tianamen Square. Indeed, many of our captains of industry probably wish such things could happen here. Henry Ford certainly would have approved of the Chinese way of doing business, as would Edison.
Unless you have the time and the qualifications to personally audit, validate and verify any security claims, you have to trust someone else.
No it's not. In this case it's about effort and value. YOU can audit GPG. If you choose not to then that's not about trust, that's about you judging the relative value of your security needs and your time.
No, that would be in line with the "natural order" or expectation: Brits cracking a WWII German code - that's what normally happened with Enigma codes: the Germans didn't have to. Germans breaking a German WWII code before the Brits is ironic because it was the intent of Enigma to allow Germans to read messages while keeping them hidden from the Brits, so Germans even trying to break the code is ironic. The fact that they beat a British machine specifically designed to break their code is doubly ironic. Geez!
Slashdot Mirror
The Reg hates Wikipedia for the simple reason that it's shit dressed up as the Second Coming. This story, like many others, simply reveals the hypocracy and bullshit that pass for normal administration at the site.
Your response is a classic "news fatigue" one: when evidence piles up for months or years and nothing is ever done to fix the problem eventually people just stop listening or rationalise it away rather than listen to any more bad news no matter how accurate it is (see: Global Warming).
TWW
I'm not sure where in that post you pointed out the inaccuracies in the Reg's coverage, but perhaps you hit "submit" by mistake before reaching that part.
Pretty well, yes.
TWW
TWW
I have to say that that is the dumbest remark about software design I've ever heard. I've worked with lots of really smart people and I've seen them all miss bugs that were obvious to other people. Wolfram recently missed an error in a proof, for example.
It's more useful to have a lot of reasonably smart people look at something than have TWO (2) supposedly "really smart" people.
But, anyway, spam is a solved issue for me - I use greylisting and get maybe 1 spam per week. I can imagine a system that reduces that to 1 per month but I don't care enough to go out of my way to install such a system. Greylisting maintained that level of protection at the start of last year where I had over a million attempted deliveries over a six month period, so I just don't see the need for anything more complex.
Plus, I don't have to spend ANY time managing my email on most days, with a peak of activity on a day when spam gets through of having to press "delete".
Exactly how we incorporate that input into spam scoring has not been publicly disclosed.
Then its worthless. You're asking us to trust that YOU will find the holes and fix them before the spammers find them and exploit them. No deal; I don't care how smart your friends are, a botnet getting updated with an exploit for your private project would be a nightmare and I can't fix it if it happens while you're in bed or on holiday.
TWW
TWW
TWW
Plus, people who believe in ID are too dumb to reason with, so her email was pointless anyway.
TWW
And what does the ht in http stand for?
and the HTML tag doesn't indicate version,
Which it should. It's the natural place for it.
More importantly though, HTML is an SGML application; the document type declaration is a fundamental requirement.
It's not fundimental in any way. HTML is a defined system (in several versions) and the fact that it is declared as HTML at the top specifically for use by programs which understand HTML is enough if the version is added to the tag. Plus, calling it an SGML application is a later rationalisation. It was inspired by SGML but it was later that efforts were made to trim off the edges to make it really SGML compatable - a goal of absolutely no importance to anyone anywhere ever. T.B.L. rarely mentions SGML and I've never seen him cite it as important beyond the idea of using tags to indicate sections of the text.
If you don't like DOCTYPE you need to go back in time about twenty years and argue with the ISO committee.
If the ISO committee's opinion mattered we wouldn't have to worry about testing our code on different browsers :(. HTML's practise has always been more important than its theory and will continue to do so as long as the market is dominated by a company that does not care about standards and the committees are staffed with people who have no interest in practical requirements.
This is not to say that I didn't make a complete tool of myself with the original post, of course.
TWW
Err... might do.
Why the hell did it suddenly start appearing everywhere from about the time of HTML v4, then? Strange.
Either way the combination of mime-type, HTML tag, and http:/// prefix pretty well tells the web browser what sort of content it is, and DOCTYPE is an unwelcome appendage.
TWW
No, it's a bug-fix.
Introducting Doctype instead of just adding a version attribute to HTML was more than silly - it was stupid and a sure sign that the W3C committee had been take over by "XML for everything" donkey wabs.
TWW
Gee, you mean like a tabloid might make if such details were "accidently" leaked to them in, say, the run-up to an election? You still don't think they were making a valid point? I would ask if you needed a map drawn, but you already had and apparently that wasn't enough.
TWW
TWW
Not in terms of the apathy of the beneficiary.
TWW
TWW
TWW
Sorry, I should have said: I'm in the UK. There's no coal mining here anymore so I'm thinking back more than a couple of decades - hence the past tense. I'm glad your dad's getting a good wage, though.
TWW
TWW
TWW
TWW
The irony was not in the technology used.
Okay, let's just accept that you have no idea what the word "irony" means and leave it at that, shall we?
TWW
Actually, they're fascist. They only say they're socialist, rather like East Germany called itself Democratic.
Well, I guess some companies are run by morons because no matter how bleeding heart liberal you are, you should remember Tiananmen Square.
Sadly, no one who believes in Capitalism cares about Tianamen Square. Indeed, many of our captains of industry probably wish such things could happen here. Henry Ford certainly would have approved of the Chinese way of doing business, as would Edison.
Remember, remember the 5th of June
TWW
TWW
No it's not. In this case it's about effort and value. YOU can audit GPG. If you choose not to then that's not about trust, that's about you judging the relative value of your security needs and your time.
TWW
No, that would be in line with the "natural order" or expectation: Brits cracking a WWII German code - that's what normally happened with Enigma codes: the Germans didn't have to. Germans breaking a German WWII code before the Brits is ironic because it was the intent of Enigma to allow Germans to read messages while keeping them hidden from the Brits, so Germans even trying to break the code is ironic. The fact that they beat a British machine specifically designed to break their code is doubly ironic. Geez!
TWW