If he doesn't, the page refreshes and a notice or login window is opened. Yes, there are ways to get around this, but all of them require an unclean design or changing the way the application works.
Going to a login page instead of popping one up is unclean design? I'd actually say the popping up is more unclean, it requires JavaScript unrequested window.open support.
If by "refresh the page" you mean "refresh the page, but with the current data as the new default for all fields", you could either add a 'box' at the top with username/password fields to be filled in, or you could stick all the info in hidden fields in the login page and do the 'refresh' that way.
Or so is the impression i get from a string of articles like this...
(i purposefully chose a link that should display only comments, not the actual question. The many comments of "you're screwed, we're in a recession" are more telling than someone asking about certs.)
The person paid to maintain legacy COBOL should be called a Code Janitor.
I don't think that quite fits, although i don't have a better suggestion for you. The job 'janitor' tends to involve cleaning and minor maintenance, while your example involves little cleaning and rather more maintenance.
The person who designs networks should be called a Network Foreman
Hmmm... Actually, "Network Architect" sounds more appropriate for someone who designs networks. Someone who manages a group of people to build the network to those specifications would be a "Network Foreman".
And anybody who writes code should be called a Software Author.
Among other things, we are.
Re your comment about "Software Engineers", several dictionaries seem to define 'engineer' as "One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering", and 'engineering' as "The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems." How does that not include computer programming?
Why not go the whole nine yards and call yourself a Software Deity?
All these "Ask Slashdot" stories filled with comments about how it's impossible to get a job these days, or at least impossible without being the close childhood friend of some corporate bigwig. No matter how good you might be.
It's times like these when "down, not across" seems like a good thing to know...
Saying that *foo is a character implies that you can do something like *foo = 'A';. Which, surprising as it may seem, you can't.
Yes you can. The segfault you're getting is because you happen not to be allowed to write to the particular char that *foo refers to at that point in the code. If you were allowed to write to that memory location, it would work exactly as it's supposed to.
First, read your EULAs for Quake 3, Half-Life, StarCraft, etc. (other games that allow you to create content). All of them say the same thing that we are saying. Our EULA is nothing new. They must be written this way to protect both the companies involved and the end users. I am serious. Read the EULAs of those other games.
Not quite. Let's try Unreal Tournament, which is also released by Infogames. The relavent clause:
6. Editor and End-User Variations. If the Software includes a feature that
allows you to modify the Software or to construct new variations for use with
it (an "Editor"), you may not sell it or repackage it for sale. If you create
modifications or enhancements to the Software using the Editor, including the
construction of new levels (collectively, the "Variations"), you are subject to
the following restrictions: (i) your Variations must only work with the full,
registered copy of the Software; (ii) your Variations must not contain
modifications to any executable file; (iii) your Variations must not contain
any libelous, defamatory or other illegal material, material that is scandalous
or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of any third party, or contain
any trademarks, copyright-protected work or other property of third parties;
(iv) by distributing or permitting the distribution of any of your Variations,
you hereby grant back to Infogrames an irrevocable royalty-free right to use
and distribute them by any means. The prohibitions and restrictions in this
Section apply to anyone in possession of the Software or any of your
Variations.
(quoted from System/license.int on one of the GOTY CDs, the license.int in my Linux installation doesn't even have this EULA (it may have been removed after installation, or it may not even apply to the Linux version from Loki)).
So it looks like you got the "we get unlimited right to redistribute" from Infogames. But nowhere do i see any clause similar to Infogrames or BIOWARE may at any time and in its sole discretion revoke your right to make your Modules publicly available. From other comments, it appears yuor examples don't have any such clause either.
In summary: nice try, but it really helps to have your facts straight so you don't look completely clueless.
Other than setting you up for fraud by claiming to be an official representative of RoadRunner
eschasi isn't claiming to be an official representative of RoadRunner, just pointing out that if RoadRunner went through the effort of adding their name to the post which implies approval of said post.
I'd rephrase it slightly anyway... maybe something along the lines of
If RoadRunner has placed their name in the Organization header of this post, that action may be taken as their official approval of the opinions expressed herein (as they are then claiming I am a part of their organization).
Anyone else have a mutant version of the same sentiment?
In most of the cases, these are private individuals that have no "organization" in the business sense. Others are private individuals who just want their own vanity organization header (serving no real purpose in the sense of the RFC's requirements). Others may be business users who probably do have a vested interest in having a distinct organization listed in their message postings.
*sigh* some people...
How about someone volunteering for a non-profit organization? Many non-profits don't have the funds to set up their own news feeds and everything, the people involved just use their home computers. These people have a legitimate right to have an Organization header even in the restricted sense you claim.
How about someone working on an uncentralized project, for example any of a large number of open source projects? Not every project can afford to set up their very own news server just to post on Usenet in an 'official' capacity. It also makes little sense to send traffic over the Internet to some remote server which sends that data right back to your local feed, when the local feed is supposed to provide the same service. Why do they not deserve an Organization header?
As others have pointed out, "Organization" is supposed to help identify the person posting. It's not supposed to identify any particular ISP the message went through on the way, that's what the Path header is for. If it were intended to identify the organization owning the news server, then it would likely say that.
I'll close with a quote from a similar context in RFC 822, which is explicitly referenced by RFC 1036 (which obsoletes 850):
Note that "organization" is a logical entity, separate from any particular communication network.
This would imply that your "'early Internet' sense" of the word organization is approximately the same as our 'late Internet' sense, in that it doesn't mean "the ISP your traffic goes through".
MS Office 2000 integrating into your context menu and adding advanced indexing features, that have saved me time finding Office docs I had no idea of the name.
Someone installed Office on a Windos box here.,.. now I can't use find at all because it insists I install Office on my account too (which i don't need or want).
Outlook [...]
One giant security hole, no matter what else it does.
and faster to use for powerful users
I actually find it much slower. Especially with stupid policies around here like "users may not turn off 'features' because we overprotected the registry". YMMV.
Damn, it's been a long time. I haven't really dealt with Netscape 3/IE3 issues since geocities didn't yet suck.
Netscape 3 was okay, as was IE3. Netscape 4.x was a horrid piece of SHIT. IE4 was decent. IE5 was quite good, while NS 4.7 and pals were just as bad as they were when IE4 came out. Now we have IE6 versus Netscape 6... and Netscape 6 is just a horrible rip of Mozilla. Netscape 6 is worthless
Netscape 3 was the best in its day, IE3 was about equivalent to Netscape 2. It was just good enough that it was usable, certainly not as wonderful as some people seem to 'remember'. Netscape Navigator 4 was ok, IE4 was about equivalent (Communicator, on the other hand, was far too bloated). Both had their major drawbacks. Here, in my opinion, the situation diverges from mere comparison of quality. IE began to be heavily bundled with and depended on by everything MS could get it into, and most people used it because it was more or less as good as Navigator 4 and it was already present and mandatory on most Windos machines. Navigator, for some unknown (to me) reason pretty much stagnated, while IE was intertwined more and more deeply into Windows and encouraged more and more websites to use its features that were gratuitously incompatible with everything else.
The truth is, i haven't seen anything in IE-whatever-version-is-on-all-the-Windows-machines -around-here that i particularly care for any more than I did Navigator 4, and i truely abhor its terrible error messages (is it just me, or does every error message from DNS failed to network unreachable to IE-doesn't-like-your-SSL say pretty much the same thing?). Mozilla leaves both IE and NS4 far behind, and even beats NS6 as NS6 is simply an advertising-enabled snapshot of Mozilla.
No, the RIAA is complaining about file swapping and album swapping on the internet.
Errr... perhaps you should pay more attention. They complain about much more than just that. I'd have to say that by item, that's only a small fraction (but by news articles, that is the one that gets most mention (especially since much of the media is beholden to the *AA types))
True. The economy did suck, it affected everyone. 10% is still a huge decrease though, so they need to justify it SOMEHOW.
How about the change from a booming economy with many people spending beyond their means to a recession (which will have a greater effect on luxury items), combined with a large disaster that has affected many people's luxury item buying habits?
Yes, i consider packaged music to be a luxury item. If nothing else, turn on the radio and listen to that packaged crap for free.
[...] This has to have happened...
When making an argument, it really helps to have facts. Or even hypotheticals with a logical chain of reasoning instead of unbacked claims...
I am confident that I will still be able to listen to the music I legally own on a device of my choosing
You really should have been paying more attention to what the RIAA has been pushing. I think then you wouldn't be so confident.
That would be a Bad Thing. Just like publishing companies attackinglibraries.
Fortunately, the Author's Guild position here is very reasonable. They're not threatening to sue, just asking their members to boycott a company they're opposed to. And they're not even asking Amazon to stop offering used books, just not to do it so obviously.
There, not i don't feel so bad about pointing out your blatant oversight.
First, you claim:
No, you can't use the back button, and that's a good thing when you're talking about instruction. Did you give a wrong answer? Well oops, I guess you just hit the back button and do it again
Then:
We only allow so many attempts before locking out the user. If the user hits Refresh or closes the window, the session is terminated, and any information collected up to that point is submitted.
Ok, your task is to explain why the back button can't be treated in this exact same way. Is it really that hard to have the backend deliver a message "You already answered that question and saw the answer. So you aren't allowed to re-answer, cheater!" when you submit the question a second time?
Once you've properly answered this question, please go back and try to find another reason disabling the back button, bookmarking, etc is a good idea.
I think that ORDB should make you pay them for the time that they spend removing your database entry.
A few years ago i took over administration on a server that was, among other things, an open relay (i just backed up the user data, trashed the ancient Red Hat that was on there, and installed Debian). Went to ORBS, filled out the "i've fixed my server" form, and a week or so later it was off the list.
You're trying to tell me i should've had to pay for that? You're as bad as the guy claiming they owed him!
1. They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting the new terms on the website. (Currently they are obliged to give 15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this change.)
It is a free service... if they want to change something should they be shackled by having to email all the users to change anything?
I've always hated those "we can change things without any real notice" clauses. 15 days could be a bit long, i suppose... Why not 2 business days or something like that? Gives people enough time to move out if they really don't like the changes, and still allows reasonably fast changes to the policy.
2. They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason. (Currently they are obliged to have a reason, though the set of acceptable reasons is open-ended.)
They avoid leagle entanglement for said free service... People abuse free systems, they need to be delt with quickly and effectivly.
3. They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account available to its owner. (There was previously a "reasonable effort" clause to that effect.)
Couldn't they still do that with having to give a reason? Hell, "abuse of site resources" is one of their explicitly listed reasons for termination. This makes me think they're going to start deleting things for reasons they don't want to be publically known...
Ok, reading the actual terms of service, these seem to be not exactly true. Since the reasons for termination were never limited, "we don't like you" is technically a good enough reason. And they were never obligated to make the information available, they just said "We'll be nice and do it if we can without too much trouble." It's still kind of shady though...
4. They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy policy, unless the changes are "substantive". (Currently they are obliged to provide notice of any change.)
Hmmm, some web notice would be nice... but again it is a free service...
That's no excuse for giving no notice. It would be nice to know what their lawyers (it always comes down to lawyers) consider "substantive". Fixing grammar and spelling mistakes is fine for no notice, but i'd want notice of anything that changed the actual policy.
Finally, it could be argued that a web page with external links is only a kind of recipe to build a document. I provide my audience with the recipe, but it's still the readers themselves (via their browser) that will build the document, so how could I be responsible for the actions of others ?
If only I had mod points...
With respect to the grandparent post, it's another ruling along the lines of "Warning: Coffee may be hot!"
To use your analogy, its as if i wrote an article saying "Go to the Boston Herald, ask for a copy of this particular article, and surround it with this drawing I have of flowers."
Which would probably be contributory copyright infringement:).
It's copyright infringement for anyone to take a legally obtained article and surrount it with a drawing of flowers? Could you please provide a link to the section of US law stating this (since we're currently discussing a US law, it wouldn't be relavent to reference another country's laws)?
Is this text illegal then? Yes, this specific text, exactly as written here:
Put the header on the result page.
Get the data from cnn.com.
For each news-record in the data:
Put the title in bold on the result page.
Put the summary in small print on the result page
Put an HR tag on the result page.
Put the footer on the result page.
I sincerely hope you agree that publishing the description above is not wrong or illegal. It doesn't describe how to make a bomb or anything dangerous or illegal, so there's no point in comparing it to that. It's just directions on how to take data you've obtained legally and change it for your own purposes.
So what then if there exists a program that can read and follow those directions? Does that suddenly make my publishing those directions illegal? You seem to be saying yes. I don't understand that, what is the distinction here?
Slashdot Mirror
Going to a login page instead of popping one up is unclean design? I'd actually say the popping up is more unclean, it requires JavaScript unrequested window.open support.
If by "refresh the page" you mean "refresh the page, but with the current data as the new default for all fields", you could either add a 'box' at the top with username/password fields to be filled in, or you could stick all the info in hidden fields in the login page and do the 'refresh' that way.
(i purposefully chose a link that should display only comments, not the actual question. The many comments of "you're screwed, we're in a recession" are more telling than someone asking about certs.)
I don't think that quite fits, although i don't have a better suggestion for you. The job 'janitor' tends to involve cleaning and minor maintenance, while your example involves little cleaning and rather more maintenance.
At least, i suspect you're pleased with the Linux Kernel Janitors?
The person who designs networks should be called a Network Foreman
Hmmm... Actually, "Network Architect" sounds more appropriate for someone who designs networks. Someone who manages a group of people to build the network to those specifications would be a "Network Foreman".
And anybody who writes code should be called a Software Author.
Among other things, we are.
Re your comment about "Software Engineers", several dictionaries seem to define 'engineer' as "One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering", and 'engineering' as "The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems." How does that not include computer programming?
Why not go the whole nine yards and call yourself a Software Deity?
Because i don't have to, others do it for me? ;)
It's times like these when "down, not across" seems like a good thing to know...
I've always thought 1TBS was more or less like this, though. Maybe i'm wrong, i don't really care if my style has a name.
int foo(bar) {
// code
// more code
if (something) {
} else {
}
}
Anyway, I use the above. My main oddity is with case labels, i half-indent them to set them off better from the code within the case.
switch(foo){
// Code
// More code
/* Fall through */
// More code
case 0:
break;
case 1:
default:
break;
}
Yes you can. The segfault you're getting is because you happen not to be allowed to write to the particular char that *foo refers to at that point in the code. If you were allowed to write to that memory location, it would work exactly as it's supposed to.
Not quite. Let's try Unreal Tournament, which is also released by Infogames. The relavent clause:
(quoted from System/license.int on one of the GOTY CDs, the license.int in my Linux installation doesn't even have this EULA (it may have been removed after installation, or it may not even apply to the Linux version from Loki)).So it looks like you got the "we get unlimited right to redistribute" from Infogames. But nowhere do i see any clause similar to Infogrames or BIOWARE may at any time and in its sole discretion revoke your right to make your Modules publicly available. From other comments, it appears yuor examples don't have any such clause either.
In summary: nice try, but it really helps to have your facts straight so you don't look completely clueless.
eschasi isn't claiming to be an official representative of RoadRunner, just pointing out that if RoadRunner went through the effort of adding their name to the post which implies approval of said post.
I'd rephrase it slightly anyway... maybe something along the lines of
Anyone else have a mutant version of the same sentiment?
*sigh* some people...
How about someone volunteering for a non-profit organization? Many non-profits don't have the funds to set up their own news feeds and everything, the people involved just use their home computers. These people have a legitimate right to have an Organization header even in the restricted sense you claim.
How about someone working on an uncentralized project, for example any of a large number of open source projects? Not every project can afford to set up their very own news server just to post on Usenet in an 'official' capacity. It also makes little sense to send traffic over the Internet to some remote server which sends that data right back to your local feed, when the local feed is supposed to provide the same service. Why do they not deserve an Organization header?
As others have pointed out, "Organization" is supposed to help identify the person posting. It's not supposed to identify any particular ISP the message went through on the way, that's what the Path header is for. If it were intended to identify the organization owning the news server, then it would likely say that.
I'll close with a quote from a similar context in RFC 822, which is explicitly referenced by RFC 1036 (which obsoletes 850):
This would imply that your "'early Internet' sense" of the word organization is approximately the same as our 'late Internet' sense, in that it doesn't mean "the ISP your traffic goes through".but I don't see the evil intent here
I don't either. Hanlon's Razor applies here.
Unfortunately, their list of "possible spam sources" is about the same as a radical feminist's idea of "possible rapists"...
IIRC, they tried that around 1900 or so. Got struck down in the courts, which is where AFAIK doctrine of first sale came from.
Someone installed Office on a Windos box here.,.. now I can't use find at all because it insists I install Office on my account too (which i don't need or want).
Outlook [...]
One giant security hole, no matter what else it does.
and faster to use for powerful users
I actually find it much slower. Especially with stupid policies around here like "users may not turn off 'features' because we overprotected the registry". YMMV.
PCI, S3 ViRGE to be precise. Works well enough as long as i don't try to do fancy graphics...
That perfectly describes the card in my machine right now... *sigh*
Netscape 3 was okay, as was IE3. Netscape 4.x was a horrid piece of SHIT. IE4 was decent. IE5 was quite good, while NS 4.7 and pals were just as bad as they were when IE4 came out. Now we have IE6 versus Netscape 6... and Netscape 6 is just a horrible rip of Mozilla. Netscape 6 is worthless
Netscape 3 was the best in its day, IE3 was about equivalent to Netscape 2. It was just good enough that it was usable, certainly not as wonderful as some people seem to 'remember'. Netscape Navigator 4 was ok, IE4 was about equivalent (Communicator, on the other hand, was far too bloated). Both had their major drawbacks. Here, in my opinion, the situation diverges from mere comparison of quality. IE began to be heavily bundled with and depended on by everything MS could get it into, and most people used it because it was more or less as good as Navigator 4 and it was already present and mandatory on most Windos machines. Navigator, for some unknown (to me) reason pretty much stagnated, while IE was intertwined more and more deeply into Windows and encouraged more and more websites to use its features that were gratuitously incompatible with everything else.
The truth is, i haven't seen anything in IE-whatever-version-is-on-all-the-Windows-machines -around-here that i particularly care for any more than I did Navigator 4, and i truely abhor its terrible error messages (is it just me, or does every error message from DNS failed to network unreachable to IE-doesn't-like-your-SSL say pretty much the same thing?). Mozilla leaves both IE and NS4 far behind, and even beats NS6 as NS6 is simply an advertising-enabled snapshot of Mozilla.
Ok, that's enough opinion-making from me.
Errr... perhaps you should pay more attention. They complain about much more than just that. I'd have to say that by item, that's only a small fraction (but by news articles, that is the one that gets most mention (especially since much of the media is beholden to the *AA types))
True. The economy did suck, it affected everyone. 10% is still a huge decrease though, so they need to justify it SOMEHOW.
How about the change from a booming economy with many people spending beyond their means to a recession (which will have a greater effect on luxury items), combined with a large disaster that has affected many people's luxury item buying habits?
Yes, i consider packaged music to be a luxury item. If nothing else, turn on the radio and listen to that packaged crap for free.
[...] This has to have happened...
When making an argument, it really helps to have facts. Or even hypotheticals with a logical chain of reasoning instead of unbacked claims...
I am confident that I will still be able to listen to the music I legally own on a device of my choosing
You really should have been paying more attention to what the RIAA has been pushing. I think then you wouldn't be so confident.
That would be a Bad Thing. Just like publishing companies attacking libraries.
Fortunately, the Author's Guild position here is very reasonable. They're not threatening to sue, just asking their members to boycott a company they're opposed to. And they're not even asking Amazon to stop offering used books, just not to do it so obviously.
The kind that knows they'd fail miserably?
There, not i don't feel so bad about pointing out your blatant oversight.
First, you claim:
Then: Ok, your task is to explain why the back button can't be treated in this exact same way. Is it really that hard to have the backend deliver a message "You already answered that question and saw the answer. So you aren't allowed to re-answer, cheater!" when you submit the question a second time?Once you've properly answered this question, please go back and try to find another reason disabling the back button, bookmarking, etc is a good idea.
A few years ago i took over administration on a server that was, among other things, an open relay (i just backed up the user data, trashed the ancient Red Hat that was on there, and installed Debian). Went to ORBS, filled out the "i've fixed my server" form, and a week or so later it was off the list.
You're trying to tell me i should've had to pay for that? You're as bad as the guy claiming they owed him!
I've always hated those "we can change things without any real notice" clauses. 15 days could be a bit long, i suppose... Why not 2 business days or something like that? Gives people enough time to move out if they really don't like the changes, and still allows reasonably fast changes to the policy.
They avoid leagle entanglement for said free service... People abuse free systems, they need to be delt with quickly and effectivly.Couldn't they still do that with having to give a reason? Hell, "abuse of site resources" is one of their explicitly listed reasons for termination. This makes me think they're going to start deleting things for reasons they don't want to be publically known...
Ok, reading the actual terms of service, these seem to be not exactly true. Since the reasons for termination were never limited, "we don't like you" is technically a good enough reason. And they were never obligated to make the information available, they just said "We'll be nice and do it if we can without too much trouble." It's still kind of shady though...
Hmmm, some web notice would be nice... but again it is a free service...That's no excuse for giving no notice. It would be nice to know what their lawyers (it always comes down to lawyers) consider "substantive". Fixing grammar and spelling mistakes is fine for no notice, but i'd want notice of anything that changed the actual policy.
If only I had mod points...
With respect to the grandparent post, it's another ruling along the lines of "Warning: Coffee may be hot!"
Which would probably be contributory copyright infringement :).
It's copyright infringement for anyone to take a legally obtained article and surrount it with a drawing of flowers? Could you please provide a link to the section of US law stating this (since we're currently discussing a US law, it wouldn't be relavent to reference another country's laws)?
- Put the header on the result page.
- Get the data from cnn.com.
- For each news-record in the data:
- Put the title in bold on the result page.
- Put the summary in small print on the result page
- Put an HR tag on the result page.
- Put the footer on the result page.
I sincerely hope you agree that publishing the description above is not wrong or illegal. It doesn't describe how to make a bomb or anything dangerous or illegal, so there's no point in comparing it to that. It's just directions on how to take data you've obtained legally and change it for your own purposes.So what then if there exists a program that can read and follow those directions? Does that suddenly make my publishing those directions illegal? You seem to be saying yes. I don't understand that, what is the distinction here?