Easiest way to fix it is to not follow 302's since 302 means "The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI."
I would imagine that this could cause a problem with getting a website into the listing that is in the process of moving, but if Google simply waited until it's an actual 200 status code, then redirections would get ignored (since they're not.
From the W3C document: The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).
Again, and since even the temporary URI doesn't have to be given, 302's should be ignored. Even 301's and 303's are not acceptable since the new URI doesn't have to be given.
The harder way to fix it is to only accept 3xx response codes that give the new URI in response. Even then, I assume it's possible to still fake a 200 response code if you modify the http daemon, and make a transparent redirection... thus fooling the search engine in every respect.
In my opinion, I don't see a way around it unless you include signature files or such... but even if you used and SSL connection, it's probably still exploitable.
Although this technology isn't that impressive (to me at least), it's a great innovation.
The extra sun-light will also help with office morale, since you will be getting a good dose of daily vitamin D (it's given off when sunlight reaches your bones and helps with your pigment... at least that's what I remember learning).
Use direct connect in AIM... it doesn't go through their servers (unless they change that in the newest release).
You can even be "signed off" in AIM, but if you still have that IM window up with the direct connection, you can talk away with the person you're connected with. Hell, combine that with an encyrpted VPN, and I think you're golden.
Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors. "The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."
Concidering that MS is one of the largest companies, the reform they are pushing for is not in their best interest. They are going to have to end up paying more to file their patents if the proposed shift in the patent processing fee takes place.
Sure it's not desktop software, but if you have the right browser, many sites allow you to do your taxes for free (at least federal, they've recently been charging a small sum for state).
Even the IRS posts free tax filing sites. Some have income restrictions, but most don't. (Your H&R Block is on there too).
But seriously, if you have a very complex living situation (non college-student-who-works-at-McDonalds, and the like), it's probably better to get yours prepared by a professional. They usually think of deductions you would never come up with even if you had a nice software suite... and the extra deductions almost always pay for the preparation fee. I'm not saying everyone should, but I know many people who swear by getting their taxes done by a pro.
Yahoo carries a lot more weight than others credit them for. When Google fails to pick up something relavent then I go to Yahoo.
Funny thing is, Yahoo! uses Google's search engine.
Probably not the latest version of it, and of course tweaked for Yahoo! based on who they think will be using their search engine and other reasons, but it is Google's.
Ethic:
Microsoft was informed 7 days ago (25.02.2005, GMT +1, local time), NO answer received, so I decided to share this info with security community.
Ethics? When Microsoft didn't respond, you decided to tell the rest of the world that you can DoS some WinXP or 2003 Machine with ease? How is that ethical?
It can be analagous to someone saying "Hey, if you cut the red wire in [insert security system here] you can disable it and the cops won't come. [Insert security company] was informed and didn't respond in 7 days, so I decided to tell the rest of the world."
Integrate a TCP packet scrubber in which the time stamp seconds digit is somewhat randomized (perhaps just randomize the decimal of the second, and maybe even the seconds digit within 1).
It may be possible to still track a single computer, but this would probably be effective to put on a NAT firewall to hide the number of connections behind it.
Or, just disable the time stamp in the TCP stack... it's optional anyway.
Anyway, I thought the mac address stayed in the TCP packet? Maybe I didn't pay enough attention in CISCO class...
Wanna know a bug with that? Hold down the minus (with Ctrl), and the text will go as small as possible, then certian sections get large again. It's not like it's looping around, but it's just weird like that.
Doesn't happend for +... i.e. the text doesn't get small after holding it down for a while.
Root cause? It's not valid HTML, so the "HTML de-obfuscator" in all modern browsers has to take over. It's just that Firefox's isn't as good, apparently.
Funny thing is though, if you go to a link in slashdot, then hit the back button, the page will be displayed just fine. A similar problem is with the ATI website, where you have to go to the main page, then hit refresh for the menue effects to line up properly.
Sun best get their act together and encourage active open development of their platform if they ever want to catch up to the momentum of Linux.
It's not the momentum of linux, it's the acceleration. Solaris has a larger momentum than linux as it stands, but linux's mass is growing.
Why do people use Solaris? It's supported, guaranteed to work with numerous processors in large servers, and it's catered for large scale servers. Did I mention that it is professionally supported by Sun? If you open up the development of the software, you loose control of the coding and it becomes harder to support it. It would be nice to make solaris derivitives, but for commercial use you need stricter control of a central development team.
The company that I work for uses strictly Solaris on all it's unix servers (yes, they are Sun servers too). Why? Support... Sure linux may run fine on them, but what good is it to IT if they have to spend all day browsing through web forums to fix the problem that costs our company millions per day of lost productivity if the unix servers go down?
I asked the head-honcho of Unix in the IT department about it, and he said exactly what was stated above. Though he thinks linux is great, he says it just isn't quite fit for certian industries.
Hence the timing. A minute to write the program ("hello world" replaced with "This violates the rules of chess"), and a vew microseconds to run it.
What I was really referring to is the possibility of changing the rules. Put 4 pawns on it (or 2), and see who wins. Well... it should be obvious... more obvious than tic tac toe. Thus, I was really referring to the possible combinations of a board position in some sort of game. Just like 1x1 go. You can't even place a stone, but white will win anyway (under a certian komi).
To have a program which has solved Go (unlike the best chess programs, which are merely at the strength of Grandmasters)
It should be noted that even on a 9x9 board (let alone 19x19), competent amateurs can beat any computer program.
19x19, 13x13, and 9x9 (the "standard" sizes, though 7x7 is fun sometimes), require totally different strategies. 9x9 is pure life and death, 13x13 is mostly fighting, and 19x19 requires a good understanding of balancing influence for defined territory (don't spread your stones too thin while not letting them get bunched up).
For all who don't play go or are new to go, the biggest problem with the 19x19 and even 9x9 computer programs is that the computer can't see the dual threat someone might play with a sequence of moves. For example, you can start to attack a specific section of the board, and use what you played to grab hold of an even larger section of territory, or even kill a large portion of their stones. It's easy to fool the computer in Go.
If Microsoft sees no future in its business, it will liquidate its assets and pay off its investors. Sure, it has billions, but if it can't find a way to turn those billions into trillions, then it will be sold and the capital invested somewhere else. This is the core of capitalism.
No. What you are saying is that a corporation must make an increasing margin of profit each year (billions into trillions), which is simply not the case. If Microsoft continues to make a consistent profit, and that profit is shared amongst investors, the there is no reason for them to liquidate.
You have an odd view on the lifecycle of companies, which simply isn't the case. Companies liquidate once they can no longer make a profit (they may stay around, but surely not once they start making a net loss), not an increasing profit.
Companies are the sum of its investors, and nothing more.
Not at all. Only compaines that have publicly traded shares. I have worked for many companies that do not have any place in the stock market, and they continue on simply because they make somewhat of a profit (which quickly gets put into upgrades, etc.) and the people there still like doing what they're doing.
You don't have to sit and try to remember with position on your stick is 3rd gear in your city car, because 3rd gear is always the same.
But you have automatics, manual sticks, paddle shifters, etc... plus for manuals you can have reverse in entirely different positions as well.
What I'm pointing out is that your half-assed metaphors (which should be an analogy if you want to hold any logical ground) do not prove a point because they have no relation to the standards that I'm referring to.
You mentioned HTML/XML/XHTML/whatever you want to refer to, and that itself is a horrible metaphor. Why? Because it is a false representation. HTML is a low level system... it would be like standardizing a file format. File format standards are good. Your car metaphor is like a very high level system... like standardizing the OS.
You have no argument, and you still don't see why a GIMP interface would be horrible for many other graphical applications, and vice versa.
What you didn't understand is that the standards you referred to are general, overall standards that are analagous to having the same style of window encase all applications that run in a window (close button is on the left, minimize on the right, etc.).
The standards I referred to are more analagous to what the article was mentioning... creating standards for applications that will function better if you customize them individually (i.e. you can put a motorcycle engine in a bus, but it wouldn't work that great). Having a photoshop, gimp, or other 2d markup interface will not work for well for a 3D modeling package or a video editor.
If you knew anything about cars, you'd see why you're stupid.
If you wanted to standardize a car in the sense of the article, you would put the engine in the exact same place, make the drivetrain the same every time, use the same power distribution system every time, same seats, and maybe change around a few dimentions here and there, and probably add in a few options like FES or a better audio system.
Now, how would that work out going from an F1 to a bus, to a hummer, to a sedan?
They have very few things in common... in the automotive engineering world, using cross-platform standards don't work that great. If you do make a standard, it's for a very select line of engines, or other modular systems.
Yes, I do, and if YOU RTFA, you'd realise that it's talking about more than just GIMP and Inkscape.
Crating similar UI's for similar applications is fine, but if you have much different applicaitons (video editors/3D modelers), then the common UI will not suffice for all, and will greatly hinder the user efficiency of most while helping out the users of a few.
I never demanded that people defend it... there's always an "ignore" option in life. I just think that standardizing an interface for a graphical application (besides the general sense for management in the parent environment) is bad and will reduce user efficiency.
Can you tell me that a photoshop (or GIMP) interface will work great for photo editing, or 3D design?
Sure the OSS community might benefit from having a standard in terms of a learning curve for each application, but the usability and efficiency of each application will be hindered because of it, and THAT is why I think a standard UI would be horrible... the bad outweighs the good. I'd rather spend time relearning a UI then having a poor UI hold me back.
It's all good intentions, but I'm just trying to think in the general sense. From an engineering perspective, normally standards I come across just makes for more work (and cost) in the long run... and I'd like to see a lot of that avoided.
...namely, get existing apps to standardize their look and feel.
...so they can just copy exactly what some other program is doing, and the OSS designers don't have to be innovative or creative on their own? Come on now, do you own work...
Why would you want a standard interface anyway (No, I didn't RTFA)?? That would be absolutely horrible if any major (or even minor) advances, tweaks, changes, etc are made... you're still stuck in an outdated "standard" that probably won't apply to whatever you came up with. Even if you update the "standard", that's just wasting needless time.
If that moving star appears to going slower to us, then we're moving faster to him, correct?
But if everybody BUT that star was moving at 1/500th the speed of light, then THEY would be moving slower as observed by the star, and we could observe the star as moving faster?
That's what I don't get about relativity... the whole perspective issue with time dilation and energy, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Easiest way to fix it is to not follow 302's since 302 means "The requested resource resides temporarily under a different URI."
.
I would imagine that this could cause a problem with getting a website into the listing that is in the process of moving, but if Google simply waited until it's an actual 200 status code, then redirections would get ignored (since they're not
From the W3C document:
The temporary URI SHOULD be given by the Location field in the response. Unless the request method was HEAD, the entity of the response SHOULD contain a short hypertext note with a hyperlink to the new URI(s).
Again, and since even the temporary URI doesn't have to be given, 302's should be ignored. Even 301's and 303's are not acceptable since the new URI doesn't have to be given.
The harder way to fix it is to only accept 3xx response codes that give the new URI in response. Even then, I assume it's possible to still fake a 200 response code if you modify the http daemon, and make a transparent redirection... thus fooling the search engine in every respect.
In my opinion, I don't see a way around it unless you include signature files or such... but even if you used and SSL connection, it's probably still exploitable.
I guess you're damned any way you look at it.
Although this technology isn't that impressive (to me at least), it's a great innovation.
The extra sun-light will also help with office morale, since you will be getting a good dose of daily vitamin D (it's given off when sunlight reaches your bones and helps with your pigment... at least that's what I remember learning).
If it helps with stress, I'm all for it.
Use direct connect in AIM... it doesn't go through their servers (unless they change that in the newest release).
You can even be "signed off" in AIM, but if you still have that IM window up with the direct connection, you can talk away with the person you're connected with. Hell, combine that with an encyrpted VPN, and I think you're golden.
You're paranoid, but still golden.
...RFTA.
Microsoft also called for a patent system that is more accessible to small investors, and executives recommended that the U.S. Congress end patent filing fees for small companies, nonprofit groups, universities and individual inventors. "The system has to work for everybody," said David Kaefer, director of Microsoft's IP Licensing Program. "It's only a system that works for the largest companies."
Concidering that MS is one of the largest companies, the reform they are pushing for is not in their best interest. They are going to have to end up paying more to file their patents if the proposed shift in the patent processing fee takes place.
This would only apply to things you pay for...
It won't include free websites, e-mail, free software downloads, etc... just the software you download and pay for.
Plus, this will only affect you if you live in Wisconsin, since states cannot tax interstate commerce.
Sure it's not desktop software, but if you have the right browser, many sites allow you to do your taxes for free (at least federal, they've recently been charging a small sum for state).
Even the IRS posts free tax filing sites. Some have income restrictions, but most don't. (Your H&R Block is on there too).
But seriously, if you have a very complex living situation (non college-student-who-works-at-McDonalds, and the like), it's probably better to get yours prepared by a professional. They usually think of deductions you would never come up with even if you had a nice software suite... and the extra deductions almost always pay for the preparation fee. I'm not saying everyone should, but I know many people who swear by getting their taxes done by a pro.
Yahoo carries a lot more weight than others credit them for. When Google fails to pick up something relavent then I go to Yahoo.
Funny thing is, Yahoo! uses Google's search engine.
Probably not the latest version of it, and of course tweaked for Yahoo! based on who they think will be using their search engine and other reasons, but it is Google's.
Ethic:
Microsoft was informed 7 days ago (25.02.2005, GMT +1, local time), NO answer received,
so I decided to share this info with security community.
Ethics?
When Microsoft didn't respond, you decided to tell the rest of the world that you can DoS some WinXP or 2003 Machine with ease? How is that ethical?
It can be analagous to someone saying "Hey, if you cut the red wire in [insert security system here] you can disable it and the cops won't come. [Insert security company] was informed and didn't respond in 7 days, so I decided to tell the rest of the world."
Integrate a TCP packet scrubber in which the time stamp seconds digit is somewhat randomized (perhaps just randomize the decimal of the second, and maybe even the seconds digit within 1).
It may be possible to still track a single computer, but this would probably be effective to put on a NAT firewall to hide the number of connections behind it.
Or, just disable the time stamp in the TCP stack... it's optional anyway.
Anyway, I thought the mac address stayed in the TCP packet? Maybe I didn't pay enough attention in CISCO class...
Wanna know a bug with that? Hold down the minus (with Ctrl), and the text will go as small as possible, then certian sections get large again. It's not like it's looping around, but it's just weird like that.
...at least on my system.
Doesn't happend for +... i.e. the text doesn't get small after holding it down for a while.
Root cause? It's not valid HTML, so the "HTML de-obfuscator" in all modern browsers has to take over. It's just that Firefox's isn't as good, apparently.
Funny thing is though, if you go to a link in slashdot, then hit the back button, the page will be displayed just fine. A similar problem is with the ATI website, where you have to go to the main page, then hit refresh for the menue effects to line up properly.
...slashdot doesn't display correctly in Firefox 1.0+
More at 11.
Sun best get their act together and encourage active open development of their platform if they ever want to catch up to the momentum of Linux.
It's not the momentum of linux, it's the acceleration. Solaris has a larger momentum than linux as it stands, but linux's mass is growing.
Why do people use Solaris? It's supported, guaranteed to work with numerous processors in large servers, and it's catered for large scale servers. Did I mention that it is professionally supported by Sun? If you open up the development of the software, you loose control of the coding and it becomes harder to support it. It would be nice to make solaris derivitives, but for commercial use you need stricter control of a central development team.
The company that I work for uses strictly Solaris on all it's unix servers (yes, they are Sun servers too). Why? Support... Sure linux may run fine on them, but what good is it to IT if they have to spend all day browsing through web forums to fix the problem that costs our company millions per day of lost productivity if the unix servers go down?
I asked the head-honcho of Unix in the IT department about it, and he said exactly what was stated above. Though he thinks linux is great, he says it just isn't quite fit for certian industries.
Hence the timing. A minute to write the program ("hello world" replaced with "This violates the rules of chess"), and a vew microseconds to run it.
What I was really referring to is the possibility of changing the rules. Put 4 pawns on it (or 2), and see who wins. Well... it should be obvious... more obvious than tic tac toe. Thus, I was really referring to the possible combinations of a board position in some sort of game. Just like 1x1 go. You can't even place a stone, but white will win anyway (under a certian komi).
I guess I forgot the quotes around "solved".
To have a program which has solved Go (unlike the best chess programs, which are merely at the strength of Grandmasters)
It should be noted that even on a 9x9 board (let alone 19x19), competent amateurs can beat any computer program.
19x19, 13x13, and 9x9 (the "standard" sizes, though 7x7 is fun sometimes), require totally different strategies. 9x9 is pure life and death, 13x13 is mostly fighting, and 19x19 requires a good understanding of balancing influence for defined territory (don't spread your stones too thin while not letting them get bunched up).
For all who don't play go or are new to go, the biggest problem with the 19x19 and even 9x9 computer programs is that the computer can't see the dual threat someone might play with a sequence of moves. For example, you can start to attack a specific section of the board, and use what you played to grab hold of an even larger section of territory, or even kill a large portion of their stones. It's easy to fool the computer in Go.
5x5 go is miniscule, similar in scale to "solving" 2X2 chess
Sorry, but that's like a full chess board with the pawns removed (if even that much).
5x5 Go is still fairly complex. Although the article is old (2002), I'd still like to see a caltulation time comparison.
2x2 chess can be solved in a manner of seconds/microseconds. 5x5 Go might take a few days to brute force it.
Too bad I didn't have one of these last night... maybe I could have avoided that speeding ticket.
"Passenger: Slow down! The graph just spiked!"
If Microsoft sees no future in its business, it will liquidate its assets and pay off its investors. Sure, it has billions, but if it can't find a way to turn those billions into trillions, then it will be sold and the capital invested somewhere else. This is the core of capitalism.
No. What you are saying is that a corporation must make an increasing margin of profit each year (billions into trillions), which is simply not the case. If Microsoft continues to make a consistent profit, and that profit is shared amongst investors, the there is no reason for them to liquidate.
You have an odd view on the lifecycle of companies, which simply isn't the case. Companies liquidate once they can no longer make a profit (they may stay around, but surely not once they start making a net loss), not an increasing profit.
Companies are the sum of its investors, and nothing more.
Not at all. Only compaines that have publicly traded shares. I have worked for many companies that do not have any place in the stock market, and they continue on simply because they make somewhat of a profit (which quickly gets put into upgrades, etc.) and the people there still like doing what they're doing.
There's more to business than just money.
You don't have to sit and try to remember with position on your stick is 3rd gear in your city car, because 3rd gear is always the same.
But you have automatics, manual sticks, paddle shifters, etc... plus for manuals you can have reverse in entirely different positions as well.
What I'm pointing out is that your half-assed metaphors (which should be an analogy if you want to hold any logical ground) do not prove a point because they have no relation to the standards that I'm referring to.
You mentioned HTML/XML/XHTML/whatever you want to refer to, and that itself is a horrible metaphor. Why? Because it is a false representation. HTML is a low level system... it would be like standardizing a file format. File format standards are good. Your car metaphor is like a very high level system... like standardizing the OS.
You have no argument, and you still don't see why a GIMP interface would be horrible for many other graphical applications, and vice versa.
What you didn't understand is that the standards you referred to are general, overall standards that are analagous to having the same style of window encase all applications that run in a window (close button is on the left, minimize on the right, etc.).
The standards I referred to are more analagous to what the article was mentioning... creating standards for applications that will function better if you customize them individually (i.e. you can put a motorcycle engine in a bus, but it wouldn't work that great). Having a photoshop, gimp, or other 2d markup interface will not work for well for a 3D modeling package or a video editor.
If you knew anything about cars, you'd see why you're stupid.
If you wanted to standardize a car in the sense of the article, you would put the engine in the exact same place, make the drivetrain the same every time, use the same power distribution system every time, same seats, and maybe change around a few dimentions here and there, and probably add in a few options like FES or a better audio system.
Now, how would that work out going from an F1 to a bus, to a hummer, to a sedan?
They have very few things in common... in the automotive engineering world, using cross-platform standards don't work that great. If you do make a standard, it's for a very select line of engines, or other modular systems.
Yes, I do, and if YOU RTFA, you'd realise that it's talking about more than just GIMP and Inkscape.
Crating similar UI's for similar applications is fine, but if you have much different applicaitons (video editors/3D modelers), then the common UI will not suffice for all, and will greatly hinder the user efficiency of most while helping out the users of a few.
That... is why I have a problem with it...
I never demanded that people defend it... there's always an "ignore" option in life. I just think that standardizing an interface for a graphical application (besides the general sense for management in the parent environment) is bad and will reduce user efficiency.
Can you tell me that a photoshop (or GIMP) interface will work great for photo editing, or 3D design?
Sure the OSS community might benefit from having a standard in terms of a learning curve for each application, but the usability and efficiency of each application will be hindered because of it, and THAT is why I think a standard UI would be horrible... the bad outweighs the good. I'd rather spend time relearning a UI then having a poor UI hold me back.
It's all good intentions, but I'm just trying to think in the general sense. From an engineering perspective, normally standards I come across just makes for more work (and cost) in the long run... and I'd like to see a lot of that avoided.
...namely, get existing apps to standardize their look and feel.
...so they can just copy exactly what some other program is doing, and the OSS designers don't have to be innovative or creative on their own? Come on now, do you own work...
Why would you want a standard interface anyway (No, I didn't RTFA)?? That would be absolutely horrible if any major (or even minor) advances, tweaks, changes, etc are made... you're still stuck in an outdated "standard" that probably won't apply to whatever you came up with. Even if you update the "standard", that's just wasting needless time.
Question about time dilation.
If that moving star appears to going slower to us, then we're moving faster to him, correct?
But if everybody BUT that star was moving at 1/500th the speed of light, then THEY would be moving slower as observed by the star, and we could observe the star as moving faster?
That's what I don't get about relativity... the whole perspective issue with time dilation and energy, etc...