This is the fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the address bar that makes this decision so bafflingly stupid. The address bar does not "belong to that specific page
Indeed, it belongs to the tab. Which makes having it inside the tab incredibly sensible.
This is most obvious when switching between tabs. With tabs situated under the URL bar and above the webpage clicking on a different tab would change content both above (the url field) and below (the page content) the tab. You have switched tabs but something outside the tabs containment area has changed. That is clearly inconsistent, breaks the metaphor and really is "bafflingly stupid" (despite being somewhat conventional).
I think saying that community comments have absolutely no impact on whether they CONSIDER a feature is a far cry from implemented every user feature request.
Consider? The word used was "reconsider". They have already looked at the community comments so far and considered it.
Exactly when (and how) would it be acceptable for them to give a final "no" in your opinion?
Can you explain precisely what behaviour makes them assholes?
Deciding not to implement a request?
Telling people the request won't be implemented?
Closing the bug with a final statement so people don't continue to waste their time?
It seems to me that software writers should be free to chose what features they implement. People are then free to choose to use the software or not. I don't see what people are getting angry about. The only thing I can think of that would cause the anger is some (misplaced) sense of entitlement.
When you have freedom of choice and freedom to fork just how entitled does someone have to feel to view Google submitting to the wish as the only acceptable outcome?
You can identify a Coke bottle just by the silhouette - you don't need a logo. Same thing with a Jeep, or a Wii console, or a Microsoft StarTac, etc. NBC has a valid trade mark on a 1-6-4 note protection, and Intel has one on a 1-4-1-5. No logos are even involved. Other than the Galaxy, you can identify an iPad as being an Apple iPad at a glance, without needing a logo.
All of those things (though I'm not familliar with the StarTac) have distinguishing features unrelated to function. I didn't claim that distinctive design isn't possible, merely that the iPad doesn't have distinctive features. Much like flat panel televisions have largely converged on a pretty similar and minimal look based on function I think the iPad design is merely an example of this.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Apple design principles (I have an iPhone, iPad and iMac). I like that form follows function. I just don't think that others should be prevented from adopting similar principles.
That is, I didn't until I went into a Best Buy a few months back, walked up to what I thought was an iPad display next to the Apple section of the store, activated the device, and discovered it was a Galaxy Tab.
Isn't that, in large part, because Apple's design avoids having anything that particularly distinguishes it as Apple? IE there is no Apple logo on the front. It seems to me that Apple is trying to claim what is essentially a lack of trade dress as trade dress, thereby gaining protection over something essentially generic rather than something specific.
I think it is a worrying technique because the trademark stops being a useful tool for the customer (ie letting them know a certain company stands behind a particular product) and starts being a weapon against other companies implementing fairly basic designs.
The fact that slashdot has forgotten that explains a lot about the groupthink mentality that pervades this place sometimes.
Moderators aren't mind readers, they can only judge you on the words you write. Perhaps the fact what you wrote (then and now) is indistinguishable from a troll could give you pause for thought. Perhaps it isn't Slashdot, perhaps it's you.
As a customer or stockholder wouldn't you be angry if the driving force behind your favorite company, one who had serious health concerns, ducked out of his job while giving literally not one word of concrete explanation?
Angry? No. People quit for personal reasons all the time. If someone no longer feels, for whatever reason, that they can give the necessary attention to a company then surely resigning is the right thing to do. I don't see how a precise explanation of the reason for a resignation helps anybody.
If the resignation related to the company itself (ie an irreconcilable difference of opinion among management about the companies direction) then sure, that would be relevant. If it's purely for personal reasons then I don't see how anybody else benefits from disclosure, Steve Jobs and his family are entitled to be as private as they wish with personal details.
What I do find astonishing is your sense of entitlement.
You seem to be under the impression that you had some sort of special insight. I think it was quite clear to anyone with half a brain that he was very ill when he resigned stating:
I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.
I am not sure what there is to be "angry" about, perhaps that is why people told you to "calm down".
Downloading copyright material is NOT illegal in Australia
Probably not terribly relevant as people are probably uploading too in the most common case (ie bittorrent). Uploading is almost always the issue because it allows more room for magical losses math.
A theist is someone who believes in gods, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods
Or is an atheist someone who believes there are no gods?
I think there is a subtle difference between "not believing in gods" and "believing there are no gods" (though both might reasonably be considered atheist).
I consider myself an atheist but would probably lean towards the first of those two definitions in the sense that I find the "truths" posited by various religions thoroughly unconvincing. In a sense my atheism only has me disbelieving one more religion than religious people.
I can however entertain the possibility of something existing for which "god" might be a reasonable description at this point in time, ie a being that pre-exists the reality we currently experience. However I think the for me be convinced of the existence in such a thing with any specificity would require that it would no longer justify being called "god". It could only be achieved by expanding our knowledge until we actually know something about the enitity, ie expanding our knowledge and understanding of nature until it includes what we would now consider supernatural.
No, you cannot apply true science to religions questions. There are no experiments you can perform in that venue.
I don't think that is true unless "religion" is something that categorically has no interaction with the real, physical world. For your statement to be true religion (or religions) must make no claims that relate to reality, they must be entirely metaphysical (in the supernatural sense).
I do not think that is the case in practice. When science and religion butt heads it is mostly because religion is making claims about the natural, not because science is overreaching and being applied to the supernatural.
When I pay capital gains tax, that money is not exchanging hands a second time. It was taxed when it went to the company
No. Money that "was taxed when it went to the company" and then paid to you as an shareholder is a dividend and would be generally considered income, not a capital gain. (In Australia we have dividend imputation which prevents the income being taxed twice).
The confusion probably comes from the fact that in the USA there seems to be some strange hack that allows a dividend to be taxed at capital gains tax rates if certain conditions are met, even though it isn't really a capital gain (ie it is income earned using the capital, not the result of selling a capital asset at an increased value).
A real capital gain would very much include money exchanging hands, ie someone else (not the company) giving you some of their money in exchange for your shares.
And they the tend to be the cheaper ones. However these certs are probably more likely to be at risk from the sort of whole CA system compromises we have seen recently here. IE they are issued largely automatically by key issuing servers that are accepting input from random users and have connectivity to the internet.
At least with the issuing methods with more human involvement there is more possibility (not guaranteed of course) of a process involving a physical air gap between the key issuing machines and the outside world making them more resistant to wholesale compromise.
That said I think these cheap certs are here to stay and use them regularly when setting up secure sites.
Who in their right mind would think it okay to publish a password and publish the correct one?
I am guessing that the choice of password played into this. Had it been random, nonsensical and dull it probably wouldn't have been published, but "CollectionOfDiplomaticHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#" has descriptive value.
I remember hearing or reading about an idea that involved identifying a leaker by seeding different people with documents that contained juicy, unique phrases to tempt journalists into quoting them directly, thereby identifying the source of the document.
This isn't the same, but having a password that has meaning in relation to the contents of the documents certainly adds some risk. A pass phrase should be context free.
I suppose that depends on whether compromising the Kernel source on kernel.org without detection is seen as possible. If it isn't (and kernel.org seem quite confident that git would protect against it) then the 448 users of Kernel.org may be a better target.
Considering they presumably include people from the major distros using the kernel.org compromise as a starting point to gain access into other organisations might be more valuable than a risky direct attempt on the kernel itself.
Warning people to protect themselves in the face of a legitimate threat has unmeasurable value to society, it can save countless lives and reduce the actual property damage resulting from unpreparedness. Crying wolf just teaches people to ignore the warnings.
I think the problem with that view is that some degree of what could (with hindsight) be called "crying wolf" is prudent. IE there are always going to be some massive error bars on predicting this sort of thing and it makes sense to plan for the "worse" end of the plausible predictions rather than the middle. Nine times out of ten you will probably be over estimating but the one time in ten it's really nasty that cautiousness will be worthwhile.
1) The problem was found and announced by "the php development community," and presumably found by them, too (admittedly, not prior to release).
That seems entirely incorrect. According to the bug report it seems to have been found by someone external, it was found in a release candidate not the released version and seemingly filed before the release was made.
2) Why aren't you involved in acceptance testing, if you see a problem with how it's being done?
Speaking for me, we pay Zend for server licences and imagine that in someway contributes to a professionally run project. Though I have to say we are becoming increasingly unsure as to whether we get any value for money for that, of the security fixes that 5.3.7 fixed I haven't noticed any of them being pushed to Zend Server in a priority fashion and I don't think we've ever had a single support question resolved satisfactorily. Sometimes being a Zend customer seems merely to open you up to sales pushes.
It seems that the bug was in the code base for at ~10 days before someone (external) discovered it. That does not seem to be (just) a case of unit tests being skipped in a rush, it seems like a surprising lack of automated testing.
Personally I would rather have the option of either buying the warranty OR taking a chance on my product not breaking(the vast, vast majority of them dont) instead of the government essentially forcing me to buy an extended warranty whether I want it or not. But of course maybe that is just me.
I certainly prefer a simple statutory guarantee to a warranty with weasely fine print. As you say, the vast majority of products (from reasonable manufacturers) do not break so the cost of a statutory guarantee to them should be minimal.
They are not warranties, but statutory guarantees. Most states in Australia used to have similar laws in this area but since 1st Jan this year they have been harmonised across the whole country.
The requirements are not entirely explicit, ie it is not explicitly defined that a product costing $X should last $Y years, they are largely couched in terms of what is "reasonable".
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, it belongs to the tab. Which makes having it inside the tab incredibly sensible.
This is most obvious when switching between tabs. With tabs situated under the URL bar and above the webpage clicking on a different tab would change content both above (the url field) and below (the page content) the tab. You have switched tabs but something outside the tabs containment area has changed. That is clearly inconsistent, breaks the metaphor and really is "bafflingly stupid" (despite being somewhat conventional).
Consider? The word used was "reconsider". They have already looked at the community comments so far and considered it.
Exactly when (and how) would it be acceptable for them to give a final "no" in your opinion?
Can you explain precisely what behaviour makes them assholes?
Deciding not to implement a request?
Telling people the request won't be implemented?
Closing the bug with a final statement so people don't continue to waste their time?
It seems to me that software writers should be free to chose what features they implement. People are then free to choose to use the software or not. I don't see what people are getting angry about. The only thing I can think of that would cause the anger is some (misplaced) sense of entitlement.
When you have freedom of choice and freedom to fork just how entitled does someone have to feel to view Google submitting to the wish as the only acceptable outcome?
You can identify a Coke bottle just by the silhouette - you don't need a logo. Same thing with a Jeep, or a Wii console, or a Microsoft StarTac, etc. NBC has a valid trade mark on a 1-6-4 note protection, and Intel has one on a 1-4-1-5. No logos are even involved. Other than the Galaxy, you can identify an iPad as being an Apple iPad at a glance, without needing a logo.
All of those things (though I'm not familliar with the StarTac) have distinguishing features unrelated to function. I didn't claim that distinctive design isn't possible, merely that the iPad doesn't have distinctive features. Much like flat panel televisions have largely converged on a pretty similar and minimal look based on function I think the iPad design is merely an example of this.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Apple design principles (I have an iPhone, iPad and iMac). I like that form follows function. I just don't think that others should be prevented from adopting similar principles.
Isn't that, in large part, because Apple's design avoids having anything that particularly distinguishes it as Apple? IE there is no Apple logo on the front. It seems to me that Apple is trying to claim what is essentially a lack of trade dress as trade dress, thereby gaining protection over something essentially generic rather than something specific.
I think it is a worrying technique because the trademark stops being a useful tool for the customer (ie letting them know a certain company stands behind a particular product) and starts being a weapon against other companies implementing fairly basic designs.
Moderators aren't mind readers, they can only judge you on the words you write. Perhaps the fact what you wrote (then and now) is indistinguishable from a troll could give you pause for thought. Perhaps it isn't Slashdot, perhaps it's you.
Angry? No. People quit for personal reasons all the time. If someone no longer feels, for whatever reason, that they can give the necessary attention to a company then surely resigning is the right thing to do. I don't see how a precise explanation of the reason for a resignation helps anybody.
If the resignation related to the company itself (ie an irreconcilable difference of opinion among management about the companies direction) then sure, that would be relevant. If it's purely for personal reasons then I don't see how anybody else benefits from disclosure, Steve Jobs and his family are entitled to be as private as they wish with personal details.
What I do find astonishing is your sense of entitlement.
When someone dies? It would probably help you score a few points in a psychopathy test!
I am not sure what there is to be "angry" about, perhaps that is why people told you to "calm down".
Probably not terribly relevant as people are probably uploading too in the most common case (ie bittorrent). Uploading is almost always the issue because it allows more room for magical losses math.
And I mean the Infogear iPhone from last century.
Or is an atheist someone who believes there are no gods?
I think there is a subtle difference between "not believing in gods" and "believing there are no gods" (though both might reasonably be considered atheist). I consider myself an atheist but would probably lean towards the first of those two definitions in the sense that I find the "truths" posited by various religions thoroughly unconvincing. In a sense my atheism only has me disbelieving one more religion than religious people.
I can however entertain the possibility of something existing for which "god" might be a reasonable description at this point in time, ie a being that pre-exists the reality we currently experience. However I think the for me be convinced of the existence in such a thing with any specificity would require that it would no longer justify being called "god". It could only be achieved by expanding our knowledge until we actually know something about the enitity, ie expanding our knowledge and understanding of nature until it includes what we would now consider supernatural.
I don't think that is true unless "religion" is something that categorically has no interaction with the real, physical world. For your statement to be true religion (or religions) must make no claims that relate to reality, they must be entirely metaphysical (in the supernatural sense). I do not think that is the case in practice. When science and religion butt heads it is mostly because religion is making claims about the natural, not because science is overreaching and being applied to the supernatural.
No. Money that "was taxed when it went to the company" and then paid to you as an shareholder is a dividend and would be generally considered income, not a capital gain. (In Australia we have dividend imputation which prevents the income being taxed twice). The confusion probably comes from the fact that in the USA there seems to be some strange hack that allows a dividend to be taxed at capital gains tax rates if certain conditions are met, even though it isn't really a capital gain (ie it is income earned using the capital, not the result of selling a capital asset at an increased value).
A real capital gain would very much include money exchanging hands, ie someone else (not the company) giving you some of their money in exchange for your shares.
And they the tend to be the cheaper ones. However these certs are probably more likely to be at risk from the sort of whole CA system compromises we have seen recently here. IE they are issued largely automatically by key issuing servers that are accepting input from random users and have connectivity to the internet.
At least with the issuing methods with more human involvement there is more possibility (not guaranteed of course) of a process involving a physical air gap between the key issuing machines and the outside world making them more resistant to wholesale compromise.
That said I think these cheap certs are here to stay and use them regularly when setting up secure sites.
Whatever you think are talking about, it isn't reality.
I am guessing that the choice of password played into this. Had it been random, nonsensical and dull it probably wouldn't have been published, but "CollectionOfDiplomaticHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#" has descriptive value.
I remember hearing or reading about an idea that involved identifying a leaker by seeding different people with documents that contained juicy, unique phrases to tempt journalists into quoting them directly, thereby identifying the source of the document.
This isn't the same, but having a password that has meaning in relation to the contents of the documents certainly adds some risk. A pass phrase should be context free.
I suppose that depends on whether compromising the Kernel source on kernel.org without detection is seen as possible. If it isn't (and kernel.org seem quite confident that git would protect against it) then the 448 users of Kernel.org may be a better target.
Considering they presumably include people from the major distros using the kernel.org compromise as a starting point to gain access into other organisations might be more valuable than a risky direct attempt on the kernel itself.
Someone capable of doing a MITM attack with a dodgy cert is almost certainly going to be in a position to stop you hitting a CRL.
I think the problem with that view is that some degree of what could (with hindsight) be called "crying wolf" is prudent. IE there are always going to be some massive error bars on predicting this sort of thing and it makes sense to plan for the "worse" end of the plausible predictions rather than the middle. Nine times out of ten you will probably be over estimating but the one time in ten it's really nasty that cautiousness will be worthwhile.
That seems entirely incorrect. According to the bug report it seems to have been found by someone external, it was found in a release candidate not the released version and seemingly filed before the release was made.
Speaking for me, we pay Zend for server licences and imagine that in someway contributes to a professionally run project. Though I have to say we are becoming increasingly unsure as to whether we get any value for money for that, of the security fixes that 5.3.7 fixed I haven't noticed any of them being pushed to Zend Server in a priority fashion and I don't think we've ever had a single support question resolved satisfactorily. Sometimes being a Zend customer seems merely to open you up to sales pushes.
It seems that the bug was in the code base for at ~10 days before someone (external) discovered it. That does not seem to be (just) a case of unit tests being skipped in a rush, it seems like a surprising lack of automated testing.
It seems the bug was filed before the release was made.
I certainly prefer a simple statutory guarantee to a warranty with weasely fine print. As you say, the vast majority of products (from reasonable manufacturers) do not break so the cost of a statutory guarantee to them should be minimal.
They are not warranties, but statutory guarantees. Most states in Australia used to have similar laws in this area but since 1st Jan this year they have been harmonised across the whole country.
The requirements are not entirely explicit, ie it is not explicitly defined that a product costing $X should last $Y years, they are largely couched in terms of what is "reasonable".