Perhaps. He claims their sites were offline much of 3 days or so. I didn't go to any of their sites so I don't know.
However, it's not really as beyond the realm of reason as you seem to think. Recall that there were some monster DoS's against SCO, which even Eric Raymond foudn confirmation of by taking to the actual attacker.
Even though i'm open source friendly, I have no problem believing this happened.
I think their servers are capable of withstanding a slashdotting, as they've been listed in numerous articles before this. In order to bring down a site with that kind of infrastructure, it's got to be a deliberate attack.
The W3C had no credentials or authority from a recognized standards body. It was just "formed". If the IETF, ISO, ANSI, or any of the other recognized bodies had done so it would have held more weight. Sure, the people in the W3C had credentials, the body itself did not.
Standards bodies, however, are a lot like other governing bodies. At first nobody recognizes their authority, but as they prove themselves people start to get on board. Think about organizations like the UN, WHO, etc...
There is no value in working on, or even adhering to a standard nobody else will support. That's why it's critical for standards bodies to have authority and credibility.
Nice how you conveniently ignored the point where I *SAID* HTML 1 and 2 existed, but they weren't enough for browser vendors. They were involved in heavy competition and need more than basic document structure.
As I said, the W3C was ineffectual at that point in time. The browser vendors didn't participate because it was believed that the W3C's specification (HTML 3) was going nowhere. And that is precisely what happened, self perpetuated or not.
The fact of the matter was, the W3C HTML 3 working group ignored the browser vendors and did not seek their input. The W3C had no credentials at the time, and had no authority. Nobody was going to listen to them even if they had tried, so the point was moot. It wasn't until the W3C started working WITH vendors (ie HTML 3.2) that they started to gain some credibility.
Apparently you don't really understand the way things played out back then. When you say "stick to the specification" that's all good and dandy except for the fact that THERE WAS NO SPECIFICATION back then, or at least not any coherant ones.
Remember, HTML 1 and 2 were specifications of the IETF who then summarily dropped it. The W3C (which was founded in 1994) was basically ineffectual. HTML 3 was the first spec they issued, and it was summarily ignored by the entire HTML community because it was too different from previous HTML. Nobody wanted to implement it.
So, the W3C reformulated HTML 2 and created a much slimmer and more compatible HTML 3.2 standard, but that wasn't until 1997, after both browser vendors were left standard-less for more than 2 years (and HTML 2 wasn't enough).
It was this lack of a workable standard that effectively forced Netscape and Microsoft to invent their own tags, and we've been suffering every since.
This very bug was first reported to bugzilla 10 days ago and the bug was restricted and kept private until a public disclosure by someone else a few days ago.
It took them 10 days to fix, I don't call that quick (though certainly faster than some other vendors)
I'm really of several minds about this. We're really talking about two kinds (maybe 4) kinds of copyright here.
First, is what I would term "duplicative" copyright. That is, the right to 100% duplicate a work. I think that 5 years (renewable to 10 maybe) is a good thing for duplicative works.
Then there are what I would term derivitive works, and there in lies a bigger problem. If copyright were 5 or 10 years, how do you figure out what's copyrighted in an evolving derived work? (Such as the Linux kernel or Mickey Mouse).
I don't really see any good argument as to why a derivitive work should go into the poublic domain so long as it is being actively updated (or derived from) by the copyright holder. Why should you have the right to profit from Mickey Mouses likeness while the franchise is still "in business"? Issues like Trade Dress and service marks are important here for a continuing business and often copyright plays a part with them.
Then there is the issues of art versus science or entertainment versus function. Why should a scientific copyright be held from the human race for decades because of copyright? It's arguable whether art has the kind of impact that science does on the benefit to mankind (though some might also argue that free expression of art and culture help shape society).
In any event, I don't see the issue as clear cut as others.
I can't view the bug. I'm not "authorized", so I can't verify if what you say is correct or not. How long have the Mozilla team known about this vulnerability?
That's still evading the question. The question is: Can you use Tool X? That's a yes or no answer. Answering with "I can use many tools" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.
If you wanted to say that yes, you can use tool X in addition to tool y, you'd say "Yes, as well as tool y, z and zz". If you mean that you haven't actually used tool x but have used similar ones you'd say "No, but I have used tools y, z, and zz which are very similar".
You don't evade the question and make it sound like you might have used the tool when you haven't.
Perhaps learning to use different programs in schools at a young age will help to teach them how not to get stuck in that kind of rut.
That would be a great idea, but that isn't what's being proposed. All that's being proposed is to swap Office for Open Office. In other words, they'll just learn how to use one word processor, not several. A different one than (at least currently) is in use by the majority of potential employers.
If all you will hire is people with that kind of skill, you won't be hiring many people, and you'll be paying them large salaries.
The fact is, the vast majority of people need to be given an explicit set of instructions on how to use a program, and don't have the skills necessary to deviate from them (at least not successfully. Often, you'll find the guy that deviates all the time and screws everything up in the process because he doesn't understand his limitations. It would be fine if he leared from his mistakes, but he doesn't.. he keeps making them).
Most people view a computer as a tool, like a telephone or a car. Those devices are pretty standard from system to system (at least the basic functions anyways) while computers have even basic function differences that confuse people (do I click start or click on that big K?)
If a car required the kind of knowledge it takes to run a computer, you'd see every car with controls in a different place. One would have the gas peddle on the right, one on the left. There is a reason basic functionality is always the same on appliances.
That's simply not the way things work for most people. You're trained on the specific application and that's the only application you ever use unless retrained.
Most people simply don't take it upon themselves to learn things for themselves for work, because they know if it were really important their companies will pay for their training.
Actually, if I were doing the interviewing, i'd ask them why they were evading the questions, and probably file it in the round filing cabinet for being dishonest.
"We had no signal. We were just on the way to the airport. They started to shoot at us without any light or signal. There was no block, there was nothing. It was so immediate. I didn't know how I was alive after all that attack. "
Here she claims there was no "light or signal" but in another story from the guardian, again another respectable publication she says:
Yes and no. FAT32 has a 4GB limit on NT, but on Windows 9x it's 2GB.
Also, NTFS file pointers are 64 bit, but as implemented in XP have 44 bit limitations in the device drivers, which means a maximum file size of 16TB (not GB)
Hmm... I do exactly the same thing with IE without tabs. I just right click and choose "open in new window" then continue reading the page while it loads in the background. A simple alt-tab switches between them without having to alt-tab first, then ctrl-tab to find the right tab.
I didn't find your opinion that tabbed browsing was useful obnoxious. I found your claim that everyone loves it obnoxious.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you'll believe Eric Raymond when he verified that it actually happened.
6 NWCYLL
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/200308250102
MANY people call them "standards compliant" There are even books published with that name.
When I said "they" i was referring to the papers authors.
And yes, ISO-HTML *IS* W3C HTML 4.01. The part you missed was this quote from the very document you reference:
"Documents which conform to this International Standard also conform to the strict DTD provided by the W3C Recommendation for HTML 4.01. "
Perhaps. He claims their sites were offline much of 3 days or so. I didn't go to any of their sites so I don't know.
However, it's not really as beyond the realm of reason as you seem to think. Recall that there were some monster DoS's against SCO, which even Eric Raymond foudn confirmation of by taking to the actual attacker.
Even though i'm open source friendly, I have no problem believing this happened.
I think their servers are capable of withstanding a slashdotting, as they've been listed in numerous articles before this. In order to bring down a site with that kind of infrastructure, it's got to be a deliberate attack.
If the W3C isn't a standards body, then how on earth can you represent their documents as standards that should be adhered to?
Why do we call browsers and sites "Standards compliant" if they're not standards?
BTW, the only place the words W3C exist in either rfc 1866 or 1738 is under TBL's name. They were part of the IETF working group, not a W3C one.
Oh, and ISO-HTML *IS* W3C HTML 4.01. It's just an ISO ratified version.
The W3C had no credentials or authority from a recognized standards body. It was just "formed". If the IETF, ISO, ANSI, or any of the other recognized bodies had done so it would have held more weight. Sure, the people in the W3C had credentials, the body itself did not.
Standards bodies, however, are a lot like other governing bodies. At first nobody recognizes their authority, but as they prove themselves people start to get on board. Think about organizations like the UN, WHO, etc...
There is no value in working on, or even adhering to a standard nobody else will support. That's why it's critical for standards bodies to have authority and credibility.
Nice how you conveniently ignored the point where I *SAID* HTML 1 and 2 existed, but they weren't enough for browser vendors. They were involved in heavy competition and need more than basic document structure.
As I said, the W3C was ineffectual at that point in time. The browser vendors didn't participate because it was believed that the W3C's specification (HTML 3) was going nowhere. And that is precisely what happened, self perpetuated or not.
The fact of the matter was, the W3C HTML 3 working group ignored the browser vendors and did not seek their input. The W3C had no credentials at the time, and had no authority. Nobody was going to listen to them even if they had tried, so the point was moot. It wasn't until the W3C started working WITH vendors (ie HTML 3.2) that they started to gain some credibility.
Apparently you don't really understand the way things played out back then. When you say "stick to the specification" that's all good and dandy except for the fact that THERE WAS NO SPECIFICATION back then, or at least not any coherant ones.
Remember, HTML 1 and 2 were specifications of the IETF who then summarily dropped it. The W3C (which was founded in 1994) was basically ineffectual. HTML 3 was the first spec they issued, and it was summarily ignored by the entire HTML community because it was too different from previous HTML. Nobody wanted to implement it.
So, the W3C reformulated HTML 2 and created a much slimmer and more compatible HTML 3.2 standard, but that wasn't until 1997, after both browser vendors were left standard-less for more than 2 years (and HTML 2 wasn't enough).
It was this lack of a workable standard that effectively forced Netscape and Microsoft to invent their own tags, and we've been suffering every since.
Uhh...
This very bug was first reported to bugzilla 10 days ago and the bug was restricted and kept private until a public disclosure by someone else a few days ago.
It took them 10 days to fix, I don't call that quick (though certainly faster than some other vendors)
Right away? It's been 10 days since the bug was added to the bugzilla database. 10 days!
I'm really of several minds about this. We're really talking about two kinds (maybe 4) kinds of copyright here.
First, is what I would term "duplicative" copyright. That is, the right to 100% duplicate a work. I think that 5 years (renewable to 10 maybe) is a good thing for duplicative works.
Then there are what I would term derivitive works, and there in lies a bigger problem. If copyright were 5 or 10 years, how do you figure out what's copyrighted in an evolving derived work? (Such as the Linux kernel or Mickey Mouse).
I don't really see any good argument as to why a derivitive work should go into the poublic domain so long as it is being actively updated (or derived from) by the copyright holder. Why should you have the right to profit from Mickey Mouses likeness while the franchise is still "in business"? Issues like Trade Dress and service marks are important here for a continuing business and often copyright plays a part with them.
Then there is the issues of art versus science or entertainment versus function. Why should a scientific copyright be held from the human race for decades because of copyright? It's arguable whether art has the kind of impact that science does on the benefit to mankind (though some might also argue that free expression of art and culture help shape society).
In any event, I don't see the issue as clear cut as others.
I can't view the bug. I'm not "authorized", so I can't verify if what you say is correct or not. How long have the Mozilla team known about this vulnerability?
That's still evading the question. The question is: Can you use Tool X? That's a yes or no answer. Answering with "I can use many tools" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.
If you wanted to say that yes, you can use tool X in addition to tool y, you'd say "Yes, as well as tool y, z and zz". If you mean that you haven't actually used tool x but have used similar ones you'd say "No, but I have used tools y, z, and zz which are very similar".
You don't evade the question and make it sound like you might have used the tool when you haven't.
Perhaps learning to use different programs in schools at a young age will help to teach them how not to get stuck in that kind of rut.
That would be a great idea, but that isn't what's being proposed. All that's being proposed is to swap Office for Open Office. In other words, they'll just learn how to use one word processor, not several. A different one than (at least currently) is in use by the majority of potential employers.
If all you will hire is people with that kind of skill, you won't be hiring many people, and you'll be paying them large salaries.
The fact is, the vast majority of people need to be given an explicit set of instructions on how to use a program, and don't have the skills necessary to deviate from them (at least not successfully. Often, you'll find the guy that deviates all the time and screws everything up in the process because he doesn't understand his limitations. It would be fine if he leared from his mistakes, but he doesn't.. he keeps making them).
Most people view a computer as a tool, like a telephone or a car. Those devices are pretty standard from system to system (at least the basic functions anyways) while computers have even basic function differences that confuse people (do I click start or click on that big K?)
If a car required the kind of knowledge it takes to run a computer, you'd see every car with controls in a different place. One would have the gas peddle on the right, one on the left. There is a reason basic functionality is always the same on appliances.
That's simply not the way things work for most people. You're trained on the specific application and that's the only application you ever use unless retrained.
Most people simply don't take it upon themselves to learn things for themselves for work, because they know if it were really important their companies will pay for their training.
Actually, if I were doing the interviewing, i'd ask them why they were evading the questions, and probably file it in the round filing cabinet for being dishonest.
Strange, the car photos didn't show up... here they are:
- proves-she-lied.html
http://wheels128.blogspot.com/2005/03/sgrenas-car
Well, for starters. Here's pictures of the actual car.
y /0,6903,1431436,00.html
I don't see 400 bullet holes there, much less anything that would indicate being hit by a 4" Tank round.
As for the statements, how am I supposed to prove it to you? The BBC is a respectable news source and they quote her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4324251.stm
"We had no signal. We were just on the way to the airport. They started to shoot at us without any light or signal. There was no block, there was nothing. It was so immediate. I didn't know how I was alive after all that attack. "
Here she claims there was no "light or signal" but in another story from the guardian, again another respectable publication she says:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/stor
"The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle."
Right there are two conflicting statements. They can't both be true, not to mention the lack of bullet (much less tank rounds) in the car itself.
Yes and no. FAT32 has a 4GB limit on NT, but on Windows 9x it's 2GB.
n /W indows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resour ces/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc _fil_tdrn.asp
Also, NTFS file pointers are 64 bit, but as implemented in XP have 44 bit limitations in the device drivers, which means a maximum file size of 16TB (not GB)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentatio
Hmm... I do exactly the same thing with IE without tabs. I just right click and choose "open in new window" then continue reading the page while it loads in the background. A simple alt-tab switches between them without having to alt-tab first, then ctrl-tab to find the right tab.
I didn't find your opinion that tabbed browsing was useful obnoxious. I found your claim that everyone loves it obnoxious.
FAT32 is limited to 2GB for any single file, not 2GB of total files.
Uhh.. NTFS has always been a 64 bit filesystem. FAT is 32 bit and only supports 2GB files.
Also, many C based apps only use a 32 bit file pointer, so that could be your problem as well.
http://www.marvell.com/drivers/driverDisplay.do?dI d=101&pId=28
nothing on the Netgear yet afaict
What about the constant stream of Firefox updates? And you do realize that IE has a popup blocker built-in, right?