var e = document.getElementById('fieldname');
e.style.display = 'none'; (or)
e.style.visibility = 'hidden';
The difference between display and visibility is that turning off display causes everything to reposition as if the object wasn't there, and turning off visibility just makes it invisible (while keeping the space reserved).
*spoken by someone who basically gave up trying to get toggling of a field's visibility to work, and are probably going to be forced to block all Mozilla browsers.
You really think Merrill Lynch is going to just "go it alone" in their migration?
You don't think Merrill Lynch has a fairly significant IT staff? Not to say that Red Hat won't get any support money (they probably will), but it's not as much as you seem to think.
I'm starting to wonder if he wasn't layed off from a company whose product was made obsolete by some weekend hacker's OSS project, and he's damn bitter about it.
Actually, I using Linux every day as a development platform for my product, while using Exceed from my rock-solid Win2K box. Two points to make: 1) I'm not a zealot, and 2) I have a sense of humor (unlike you apparently).
Do you get paid to do propaganda on slashdot, or is it a hobby?
Actually, I consider it a service to humanity. My great gift to the world is to set people straight on the Truth. Slashdot is but a small part of my mission.
Thousands of copies getting potentially used means revenues of, what, about $150 for that single copy?
Marge, CALL MY BROKER AND BUY RED HAT! BUY BUY BUY!!
Re:More virus-like that the company might admit
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
While it would be hard to argue that the binocular manufacturer intended the product to be used illegally, it might not be so tough with the Spyware. Consider that Spyware has only one function, to collect data without the knowledge of the person under surveillance.
The problem is that collecting data without the knowledge of the person under surveillance is not necessarily illegal. If I'm an employer, I can do it all day long, and thus the product is legal.
I would argue that anyone that does anything to your computer, in an unauthorized manner is morally equivalant.
Fine, but that is irrelevent to the issue at hand. The point of spyware is to spy, and thus part of its function is to disable anti-spyware. If you bought the software intending to use it for spying, wouldn't that be the expected behavior? In other words, as long as its installed by an authorized person (such as the company IT staff), and it documents what it is doing, it is free to do anything it wants.
Research strongly indicates a built-in cycle of a bit over 24 hours, actually. Experiments have been run with people kept in isolation without timekeeping devices, and their day slowly advances. The effect's repeatable in different subjects.
I've heard of those experiments, and I'm not sure it says anything other than people tend to want to sleep longer.:)
The only experiment that would really tell us anything is to raise children in a 12 hour cycle or an 18 hour cycle and see if they adapt. I have a feeling they would, which would argue against a "built-in" amount of time.
I suppose it would also be interesting to observe a tribe in isolation in an extreme northern latitude where you don't have much difference between night and day. Probably not possible in today's age where there really aren't any "tribes in isolation" anymore.
Re:Litigation time...
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
By technical definition, spyware is a virus.
Uh, no. Spyware are just applications that do what they are designed to do, and are loaded on just like any other application. A virus breaks into your computer in unauthorized ways. A virus can be spyware, but spyware is not a virus.
If I found that someone had installed unauthorized spyware on my machine and broke my anti-spyware, I would be suing not just the individual who installed it on my machine in the first place, but also the company that makes the spyware.
And would you also sue a binocular manufacturer if someone spys on your wife in your backyard?
That was my point: anyone with children knows that they have absolutely no built-in catching ability. Actually, my boy is 2 1/2 and very advanced when it comes to hand-eye coordination, and there is no way that he had any natural ability to catch.
This really should be obvious: the brain is going to have as little built-in as possible, since that makes it that much easier to pass traits to the next generation. Actually, another thing that I think is a fallacy is any sort of built-in 24-hour day, like many theorize. There simply isn't a need for it, since people get exposure to it automatically.
The Hollings bill will restrict my personal use rights. Congress and the courts have traditionally upheld my right to freely use content that I have legally acquired. But the Hollings bill takes away most of those rights and leaves me with virtually none. Until my fair use rights are ensured, any further encroachment on them must not occur.
Flat out wrong, at least as far as the Senators will see it. The bill in question specifically addresses fair use rights.
The Hollings bill will inevitably prevent innovation because it is the most sweeping regulation of the information technology sector in its history. The bill will give content companies the ability to veto devices like the VCR and the digital Walkman.
This really doesn't say anything, and sounds reactionary.
The Hollings bill is the wrong approach to solving the problem of piracy. A government-mandated standard will never be able to adapt to the rapidly changing digital world. The new "anti-piracy" measures will only harm law-abiding consumers. Every copy protection measure will be defeated by dedicated foreign pirates who sell the stolen goods illicitly. Copy protection will only defeat fair use.
Once again, this sounds reactionary and ill-informed. It might be true in some ways, but it doesn't really address any real issues. The industry knows that they don't have to defeat "foreign pirates", they only have to stop the average consumer.
The content companies said that the DMCA would allow them to deliver great broadband content. Yet four years later, the only outcome of the DMCA has been lawsuits against innovative companies and threats against consumers. We have no reason to believe that the Hollings bill will be any different.
Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevent. The point of this bill is not to provide broadband content, it's to stop piracy.
Once again I have to say: Laws are generally written to solve problems, not just to irritate you. Understand why this law is being written, and attack it based on the fact that the cure will create more problems that it solves. Places to attack: making devices more expensive for law-abiding citizens, privacy (will registration be required for music?), etc.
I particularly liked one of the follow-ups to my original post, where he complained that the music industry is attempting to shift the enforcement of copyright from their own lawyers (where it belongs) to the tech sector. If the music industry wants to attack copyright infringement, then let them go out and start identifying piraters. It's their problem, not the tech industry's problem. I think this would be an excellent point to make in a letter.
But that whiny letter is worse than useless. I recommend against using it.
Actually, there's nothing about HTTP that's HTML specific, other than having a specific content-type.
The Usenet Protocol was DESIGNED to transport plaintext. Newsreaders that read HTML off postings do it by ugly hacks, that don't always work.
Roads were originally designed to carry horse traffic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't adapt them as necessary when cars were invented.
If you can control your newsreader like you do with your browser, I'd not reject HTML-on-usenet as much.
Well, I can, since my newsreader uses the IE Browser object for displaying HTML. Still, I do sympathize with the fact that HTML can be abused on Usenet. I think that means we should have better newsreaders/browsers, not that HTML is intrinsically bad.
BECAUSE the design and implementation of the protocol undoubtedly would be DIFFERENT than the original Usenet so they can handle HTML INHERENTLY.
The only change that I can think of is that we wouldn't ship around messages with two copies, which would obviously be a plus. Still, it's not a perfect world and I think the advantages far outweight the disadvantages.
Fine, if that's all you care about. I'm sure the RIAA would appreciate to know that you would be willing to buy a DVD without a case, no extra liner goodies, and with a media that would only survive one play.
Of course, what you care about is irrelevent to what others care about. Some people like having a nice looking case for their DVD library. Some people like the extra goodies that come on the liner notes. And some would appreciate having a quality DVD media that would survive a few playings.
A garage DVD burner possibly has lower reliability and/or life than a professionally manufactured DVD. Note also that he says "inferior product", not "inferior picture". It also probably has a cheaper case and badly copied inserts.
Part of the score in the contest was running time. Sure, if you know ahead of time that the problem has no efficient solution, then you would just do brute force, or you would do an approximate solution and not waste your time on trying to find a correct solution..
What's unfair is that it wasn't a level playing field -- those who knew the "gotcha" had a huge advantage over those who didn't. It's not a fair test of programming skill if the primary test is whether you knew the problem already.
What's the major advantage to HTML on the web? You can link to other pages on the web, knowing they're there.
Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? There is NOTHING about the web that guarantees a page "is there". In fact, the whole "linked" nature of the web is totally an illusion. All you're doing is marking a piece of text as something that should be inserted into your browser's address bar if you click on it. There's nothing magic about a link.
Now how would one use HTML to link to other posts on Usenet and be sure they're there? Could you write a post linking to several later posts you were planning?
Who cares about linking to Usenet posts? Just being able to link to web sites would be an advantage.
You don't need HTML to do that - you don't even need it to post web links, as one can just copy and paste them into a browser.
As you can on the web. Who needs links when you can just cut/paste into the browser? After all, that's all a link does anyway. The point is that it's a convenience, which is just as convenient in a Usenet post.
Maybe, before telling us how Usenet should work, you ought to learn how the web works first.
When I was a sophomore(?) in high school around 1980, some friends and I entered a programming contest. I don't remember which one it was; it may even have been an ACM contest.
Anyway, we got a bunch of problems. I ended up taking the hardest one, which would probably take all the time allotted, while the others worked on cranking out the simpler one.
Here was the question: You have a salesman that must travel through a series of cities. Write a program to find the shortest route.
I had never heard of the Travelling Salesman problem before.
So I diligently tried to solve the problem. But for some strange reason, I kept running into cases that made it difficult to find the optimal, shortest route. I worked my ass off for the 2 or 3 hours that we had, and ended up running out time. I was sure there "had to be a solution", otherwise, why would they give us the problem?
It wasn't f***ing fair, and I'm still f***ing pissed about it to this day.:)
He didn't. He thought it had its place, but that place wasn't Usenet. Phenomincally easy to understand, you pretended - you lied, if you like - that he was arguing that HTML was an evil by itself.
*sigh* Of course, it has be a problem with me ("lied"??) -- it couldn't be that you're not understanding the point I'm making.
The point is that he recognizes the advantages of HTML on the web and on Slashdot, yet is unwilling to consider those advantages for Usenet. I turned the argument around -- if ASCII is so great for Usenet, then why not all ASCII for the web?
Both the web and Usenet are publication protocols. They just go about them in very different ways. I find it very useful to be able to italicize, boldface, embed links, have lists, etc in my publications, not to mention the advantages of proportional fonts.
Slashdot Mirror
var e = document.getElementById('fieldname');
e.style.display = 'none'; (or)
e.style.visibility = 'hidden';
The difference between display and visibility is that turning off display causes everything to reposition as if the object wasn't there, and turning off visibility just makes it invisible (while keeping the space reserved).
Well, that's good. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Netscape 6 versions out there right now.
Oops, that should be "apply visibility to a <div> section".
That's more or less what I do, except I'm trying to apply visibility to a
section. My understanding is that it should make the whole section invisible, which works in IE, but not in Mozilla.I'm kind of suspecting that I probably need to recursively set everything to invisible in the
section to work around the bug, but I haven't tried it (have had other priorities)Which version will have CSS that works?*
*spoken by someone who basically gave up trying to get toggling of a field's visibility to work, and are probably going to be forced to block all Mozilla browsers.
You really think Merrill Lynch is going to just "go it alone" in their migration?
You don't think Merrill Lynch has a fairly significant IT staff? Not to say that Red Hat won't get any support money (they probably will), but it's not as much as you seem to think.
I'm starting to wonder if he wasn't layed off from a company whose product was made obsolete by some weekend hacker's OSS project, and he's damn bitter about it.
Actually, I using Linux every day as a development platform for my product, while using Exceed from my rock-solid Win2K box. Two points to make: 1) I'm not a zealot, and 2) I have a sense of humor (unlike you apparently).
Do you get paid to do propaganda on slashdot, or is it a hobby?
Actually, I consider it a service to humanity. My great gift to the world is to set people straight on the Truth. Slashdot is but a small part of my mission.
Thousands of copies getting potentially used means revenues of, what, about $150 for that single copy?
Marge, CALL MY BROKER AND BUY RED HAT! BUY BUY BUY!!
While it would be hard to argue that the binocular manufacturer intended the product to be used illegally, it might not be so tough with the Spyware. Consider that Spyware has only one function, to collect data without the knowledge of the person under surveillance.
The problem is that collecting data without the knowledge of the person under surveillance is not necessarily illegal. If I'm an employer, I can do it all day long, and thus the product is legal.
I would argue that anyone that does anything to your computer, in an unauthorized manner is morally equivalant.
Fine, but that is irrelevent to the issue at hand. The point of spyware is to spy, and thus part of its function is to disable anti-spyware. If you bought the software intending to use it for spying, wouldn't that be the expected behavior? In other words, as long as its installed by an authorized person (such as the company IT staff), and it documents what it is doing, it is free to do anything it wants.
Research strongly indicates a built-in cycle of a bit over 24 hours, actually. Experiments have been run with people kept in isolation without timekeeping devices, and their day slowly advances. The effect's repeatable in different subjects.
I've heard of those experiments, and I'm not sure it says anything other than people tend to want to sleep longer. :)
The only experiment that would really tell us anything is to raise children in a 12 hour cycle or an 18 hour cycle and see if they adapt. I have a feeling they would, which would argue against a "built-in" amount of time.
I suppose it would also be interesting to observe a tribe in isolation in an extreme northern latitude where you don't have much difference between night and day. Probably not possible in today's age where there really aren't any "tribes in isolation" anymore.
By technical definition, spyware is a virus.
Uh, no. Spyware are just applications that do what they are designed to do, and are loaded on just like any other application. A virus breaks into your computer in unauthorized ways. A virus can be spyware, but spyware is not a virus.
If I found that someone had installed unauthorized spyware on my machine and broke my anti-spyware, I would be suing not just the individual who installed it on my machine in the first place, but also the company that makes the spyware.
And would you also sue a binocular manufacturer if someone spys on your wife in your backyard?
That was my point: anyone with children knows that they have absolutely no built-in catching ability. Actually, my boy is 2 1/2 and very advanced when it comes to hand-eye coordination, and there is no way that he had any natural ability to catch.
This really should be obvious: the brain is going to have as little built-in as possible, since that makes it that much easier to pass traits to the next generation. Actually, another thing that I think is a fallacy is any sort of built-in 24-hour day, like many theorize. There simply isn't a need for it, since people get exposure to it automatically.
You beat me to it -- in fact, you used the exact subject I was going to use. :)
Try throwing a ball to a small child and see how naturally they compensate for gravity.
Sheesh, if you ever doubt that scientists follow the same idiot/smart ratios as the general population, take a look at something like this.
Boy that letter really sucks. See my other post about this. Let me take it point by point:
The Hollings bill will restrict my personal use rights. Congress and the courts have traditionally upheld my right to freely use content that I have legally acquired. But the Hollings bill takes away most of those rights and leaves me with virtually none. Until my fair use rights are ensured, any further encroachment on them must not occur.
Flat out wrong, at least as far as the Senators will see it. The bill in question specifically addresses fair use rights.
The Hollings bill will inevitably prevent innovation because it is the most sweeping regulation of the information technology sector in its history. The bill will give content companies the ability to veto devices like the VCR and the digital Walkman.
This really doesn't say anything, and sounds reactionary.
The Hollings bill is the wrong approach to solving the problem of piracy. A government-mandated standard will never be able to adapt to the rapidly changing digital world. The new "anti-piracy" measures will only harm law-abiding consumers. Every copy protection measure will be defeated by dedicated foreign pirates who sell the stolen goods illicitly. Copy protection will only defeat fair use.
Once again, this sounds reactionary and ill-informed. It might be true in some ways, but it doesn't really address any real issues. The industry knows that they don't have to defeat "foreign pirates", they only have to stop the average consumer.
The content companies said that the DMCA would allow them to deliver great broadband content. Yet four years later, the only outcome of the DMCA has been lawsuits against innovative companies and threats against consumers. We have no reason to believe that the Hollings bill will be any different.
Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevent. The point of this bill is not to provide broadband content, it's to stop piracy.
Once again I have to say: Laws are generally written to solve problems, not just to irritate you. Understand why this law is being written, and attack it based on the fact that the cure will create more problems that it solves. Places to attack: making devices more expensive for law-abiding citizens, privacy (will registration be required for music?), etc.
I particularly liked one of the follow-ups to my original post, where he complained that the music industry is attempting to shift the enforcement of copyright from their own lawyers (where it belongs) to the tech sector. If the music industry wants to attack copyright infringement, then let them go out and start identifying piraters. It's their problem, not the tech industry's problem. I think this would be an excellent point to make in a letter.
But that whiny letter is worse than useless. I recommend against using it.
HTTP was DESIGNED to transport HTML.
Actually, there's nothing about HTTP that's HTML specific, other than having a specific content-type.
The Usenet Protocol was DESIGNED to transport plaintext. Newsreaders that read HTML off postings do it by ugly hacks, that don't always work.
Roads were originally designed to carry horse traffic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't adapt them as necessary when cars were invented.
If you can control your newsreader like you do with your browser, I'd not reject HTML-on-usenet as much.
Well, I can, since my newsreader uses the IE Browser object for displaying HTML. Still, I do sympathize with the fact that HTML can be abused on Usenet. I think that means we should have better newsreaders/browsers, not that HTML is intrinsically bad.
BECAUSE the design and implementation of the protocol undoubtedly would be DIFFERENT than the original Usenet so they can handle HTML INHERENTLY.
The only change that I can think of is that we wouldn't ship around messages with two copies, which would obviously be a plus. Still, it's not a perfect world and I think the advantages far outweight the disadvantages.
Fine, if that's all you care about. I'm sure the RIAA would appreciate to know that you would be willing to buy a DVD without a case, no extra liner goodies, and with a media that would only survive one play.
Of course, what you care about is irrelevent to what others care about. Some people like having a nice looking case for their DVD library. Some people like the extra goodies that come on the liner notes. And some would appreciate having a quality DVD media that would survive a few playings.
I can't decide if you were being serious, and thus proving the guy's point, or if this is some subtle attempt at humor.
Now it's clear that you're just fucking trolling to rile up anybody whose belly doesn't rest on the front of his chair as he sits on a DSL wire.
Sheesh, dude, it was a joke -- relax. I realize I didn't put a smiley on it, but...
A garage DVD burner possibly has lower reliability and/or life than a professionally manufactured DVD. Note also that he says "inferior product", not "inferior picture". It also probably has a cheaper case and badly copied inserts.
Part of the score in the contest was running time. Sure, if you know ahead of time that the problem has no efficient solution, then you would just do brute force, or you would do an approximate solution and not waste your time on trying to find a correct solution..
What's unfair is that it wasn't a level playing field -- those who knew the "gotcha" had a huge advantage over those who didn't. It's not a fair test of programming skill if the primary test is whether you knew the problem already.
I know -- that's what was unfair about it.
What's the major advantage to HTML on the web? You can link to other pages on the web, knowing they're there.
Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? There is NOTHING about the web that guarantees a page "is there". In fact, the whole "linked" nature of the web is totally an illusion. All you're doing is marking a piece of text as something that should be inserted into your browser's address bar if you click on it. There's nothing magic about a link.
Now how would one use HTML to link to other posts on Usenet and be sure they're there? Could you write a post linking to several later posts you were planning?
Who cares about linking to Usenet posts? Just being able to link to web sites would be an advantage.
You don't need HTML to do that - you don't even need it to post web links, as one can just copy and paste them into a browser.
As you can on the web. Who needs links when you can just cut/paste into the browser? After all, that's all a link does anyway. The point is that it's a convenience, which is just as convenient in a Usenet post.
Maybe, before telling us how Usenet should work, you ought to learn how the web works first.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
When I was a sophomore(?) in high school around 1980, some friends and I entered a programming contest. I don't remember which one it was; it may even have been an ACM contest.
Anyway, we got a bunch of problems. I ended up taking the hardest one, which would probably take all the time allotted, while the others worked on cranking out the simpler one.
Here was the question: You have a salesman that must travel through a series of cities. Write a program to find the shortest route.
I had never heard of the Travelling Salesman problem before.
So I diligently tried to solve the problem. But for some strange reason, I kept running into cases that made it difficult to find the optimal, shortest route. I worked my ass off for the 2 or 3 hours that we had, and ended up running out time. I was sure there "had to be a solution", otherwise, why would they give us the problem?
It wasn't f***ing fair, and I'm still f***ing pissed about it to this day. :)
He didn't. He thought it had its place, but that place wasn't Usenet. Phenomincally easy to understand, you pretended - you lied, if you like - that he was arguing that HTML was an evil by itself.
*sigh* Of course, it has be a problem with me ("lied"??) -- it couldn't be that you're not understanding the point I'm making.
The point is that he recognizes the advantages of HTML on the web and on Slashdot, yet is unwilling to consider those advantages for Usenet. I turned the argument around -- if ASCII is so great for Usenet, then why not all ASCII for the web?
Both the web and Usenet are publication protocols. They just go about them in very different ways. I find it very useful to be able to italicize, boldface, embed links, have lists, etc in my publications, not to mention the advantages of proportional fonts.