By default, Mozilla deletes cookies after 90 days, but you can change that in the preferences. If you're saying that MSNBC is doing this, you may want to see if it behaves the same way under other platforms, or change your user-agent to Windows/IE, to see if it's really them.
1) No, it's not faulty autodetection. It's correctly determining which browser is making the request. It's correctly sending different stylesheets based on the user-agent string. The problem is, the stylesheet itself is written in an incomprehensibly stupid way.
The fact that it only sends the broken sheets to Opera 7 would indicate that someone at MSN wants to hurt the reputation of Opera's latest offering.
2) No. Nobody should have to browse with a false user-agent string. Period. The fact is, as much as we like standards, every browser has its own quirks and problems that must be worked around if you want to give all browsers the same experience.
A good webmaster can use the agent string to greatly improve the browsing experience for everyone. But bad ones use the information to mess with users of specific browsers[*], or to deny them access altogether, even though the vast majority of websites I've entered under false pretenses worked just fine.
The whole issue is about respect. Microsoft is not respecting my decision to use a non-IE browser. Coding to standards and ensuring cross-browser correctness shows respect to everyone who views your site. Locking out users of browsers you don't like shows disrespect for those who don't share your browser preferences.
[*] Not always to IE users' benefit. I remember one slashdotter who rigged his site so that anyone using IE ended up listening to the musical stylings of William Shatner.
There's the literal way of looking at it, and then there's the abstract way. You're asking, "Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to serve up whatever HTML they like?"
But in doing so, MSN is making a very specific, very pointed, very inaccurate statement about the Opera web browser. That statement is, "Opera doesn't render web pages correctly."
Since Opera's success relies on public perception of the quality of their product, this amounts to slander. Since this is a Microsoft portal making the statement about a company that competes with Microsoft, it also raises antitrust issues.
I would also like to know how you got it in your head that, if we don't have legal recourse, the only alternative is to shut up and take it. People have a right to complain. People should complain. Opera users, specifically, should complain.
On a related note, I just spent twenty minutes on MSN.com, trying to find some sort of contact address. No dice.
The problem with something like TurboTax is that, while the application itself would be relatively easy to code, certain pieces of the software require highly specialized knowledge to implement (namely, knowledge of the current US and state tax codes).
What should be done? Programmers shouldn't be expected to keep up to date on the entire tax code, and accountants shouldn't be expected to write software.
My solution would be to propose some sort of XML DTD, which could be used to encode a wide variety of tax schemes. The user would probably end up paying a yearly fee to get the DTD from some knowledgeable company (like H&R Block or the producers of TurboTax), but any software that correctly implemented the rules would be able to do your taxes.
In an ideal world, the government itself would be the ones publishing the files, and would also certify the more popular tax software to protect users from legal liability. But I'm probably dreaming.
You must simply master the art of gentle persuasion. For example, if you're trying to sell a humor column to an editor, don't hand it to him and say, "This is some funny stuff. Read it." He won't believe you. Instead, pay his secretary twenty bucks to hand it to him and say, "Hey, this is some funny stuff. You should read it."
You see, most people are sheep. If you tell them something is very, very clever or funny, and they read it and don't find it terribly clever or funny at all, they figure that something must be wrong with them. Perhaps the humor is too deep, or relies on some inside joke that they're not getting. Rather than admit it, they'll pretend to laugh, and then recommend your work to all their friends.
An alternative tactic, if you lack the $20 or the editor lacks the secretary, is to put the column in a manila envelope, along with incriminating pictures of the boss and secretary. But the point is, all you need is to convince one person, and let them do the rest.
[Note to Edmund: This was meant to be funny, though I highly doubt you noticed.]
I've come to the conclusion that the single worst song of all time is "My Sharona" by Knack. Observe:
My Sharona by Knack
Oo my little pretty one, pretty one When you gonna give me some time, Sharona? Oo you make my motor run, my motor run Gun it coming off of the line, Sharona Never gonna stop, give it up, such a dirty mind I always get it up with a touch of the younger kind My-ee ey-ee by-ee ahee ah woo! Ma ma ma my Sharona Come a little closer, over here Close enough to look in my eyes, Sharona Keep a little mystery, kissin' me Runnin' down the length of my thigh, Sharona Never gonna stop, give it up, such a dirty mind I always get it up from a touch of the younger kind My-ee ey-ee by-ee ahee ah woo! Ma ma ma my Sharona Ma ma ma my Sharona When ya gonna get to me, get to me Is it just a matter of time, Sharona Is it a destiny, a destiny Or is it just a game in my mind, Sharona Never gonna stop, give it up, such a dirty mind I always get it up from a touch of the younger kind My-ee ey-ee by-ee ahee ah woo! Ma ma ma ma ma ma ma ma Myee ey-ee by-ee ahee ah woo! Ma ma ma my Sharona Ooooh my Sharona
What is the best way to cope with a bad song in your head? I personally favor slapping my forehead with my palm while shouting "Out! Out! Out!" but I've heard that some people have had great success by stabbing their shoulder with an ice pick.
As an expert on bad songs, I'm sure your insights into this matter can help alleviate a great deal of human suffering.
a) very secure and self-confident. b) late for a meeting. c) about to explode.
Then it is permissible to use #4 (assuming that no toilet stalls are open). Just remember that people will assume you are:
d) not a heterosexual.*
However, if you do not fit the first three criteria, you are required to stand back and wait for either urinals 1 or 3 to open up, while not actually looking like you're waiting. It is recommended that you use either the Handwashing Feint or the Hair Check Gambit. Your bathroom peers will assume you are either a hypochondriac or really vain, but either is preferable to looking like you're too chicken to just march up into the line.
Under NO condition are you allowed to use urinal #3.
You can indeed generalize about every artist in the entire industry. One downloaded MP3 equals one lost sale to a hard-working artist. Janis Ian is obviously lying, since nobody would ever buy something that they can have for free. Obviously her goal is to plunge the United States into a fiery, anarchistic free-for-all, so that it will be ripe for takeover when she launches "Phase Two."
Bunch of commie-loving, Linux-installing, drug-using hippies! All of you!
Re:HELP the RIAA!!! They'll love you for it..
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
I used to firmly believe that there could be no more horrible, vomit-inducing sound than Britney singing "Not That Innocent." But now I've realized that something far, far worse could have been created.
Me singing "Not That Innocent."
You're a sick, depraved person. Did you know that?
"Unfortunately, natural languages have almost nothing in common with computer languages. Computer languages are for the most part 1:1 codes - the same command means the same thing in whatever context it appears in a particular language. Natural languages are not codes; an idiom means different things in different contexts. That's part of the problem comparing the two."
There's something to be said for such a system, which would allow the length of the copyright to increase along with its market value. But it sounds like Eldred is proposing a one-time tax that would have no other effect on the length of the copyright term. That is, even if the tax is paid, it only grants you another X years, non-renewable.
Technology is technology. If we have the technology to unambiguously identify everyone at or around a murder scene or a kidnapping, we can also identify anyone at or around a protest rally.
Sorry, I just don't trust those who wield such technology to have both the prudence and selflessness to use their power only for the greater good.
1) Non-profit companies generally don't have "becoming for-profit" in their mission statement. It's not like when a private company tries to go public.
2) While using "google" as a verb may not be the queen's English, given this site's technologically literate readership, the author rightly assumed that he would be understood.
3) Posting rants about "proper English" on Slashdot does not make you cool, nor does it make you appear intelligent. Discussing the actual issues rather than taking issue with minor flaws in the presentation will make you appear more intelligent. Even if you're not.
Having a jerkful nature shouldn't be suable, but some of the things jerks do most definitely should be. Now, the fact that one lone bastard can single-handedly shut down a small message board has always been just one of the hazards of the online world. The question is, is that the way things should be?
On one hand, this sort of lawsuit could be easily abused. On the other hand, there is a very disturbing lack of consequences for online behavior right now.
In my gut, I side with the site owners. They're just trying to run a helpful, tame website, which keeps getting "vandalized" in a sense.
The one thing I don't get is, why not just require registration in order to post?
The point of basing the renewal fee on a percentage of gross profits is precisely so that retaining rights to a more popular work is more expensive than retaining rights to a less popular work.
For the vast majority of works, it's very unlikely that it would be worthwhile for the owner to renew the work. With less popular works, it's likely that what money they did manage to make was within the first few years, and there's no way they can recoup the money it would take to renew it.
The point I'm trying to get across is that corporations like Disney are going to let their most valuable works go without a bloody, vicious fight. If we can make it possible for them to retain a few prized possessions while still remitting most of their works to the public domain, it may go easier on us.
Right now, it's an all-or-nothing, David vs. Goliath battle. Don't forget, there's a reason everyone expected Goliath to win.
Finally, the purpose of renewal would be to continue generating profits. So as the work ages, it will become more expensive to renew, even as the value of the renewal diminishes. At some point, every work would become too expensive to keep, and would enter the public domain.
The Yahoo story seemed to grant the assumption that old, popular works like "Casablanca" and "The Wizard of Oz" need continued copyright protection. Now, I would normally argue even this point, but let's accept it. After all, these works are still valuable to their current owners.
The question is, how valuable?
For every work of art from the 20's and 30's that is still a major money maker, there are probably a thousand works which have already exhausted their value to the copyright holder. There's not sufficient interest to make it worthwhile to market it. But these works could still be valuable sources for new ideas and inspirations, historical research, and what not.
Is it worth locking up these thousands of works, making republication illegal even as the originals are ravaged by time, just to protect the few works which still provide a revenue stream?
Hell no. But if we have to strike a compromise in order to enrich the public domain and save the vast majority of our cultural heritage, then I propose this:
Repeal the CTEA. In its place, set up a system where the original copyright term applies to every work, but that term can be extended for any given work.
Since I believe in the importance of the public domain, extending the copyright on a work shouldn't be a trivial proposition. Copyright holders should be charged a fee that mirrors its value to the public; say, 1-2% of all profits attributable to the work in question over its lifetime. My reasoning is, if a copyright holder doesn't expect to make even that much from the work over the next twenty years, then revoking the copyright doesn't significantly hurt the copyright holder.
If an all-or-nothing approach ends up getting us nothing, then we have to find some sort of middle ground. This strikes me as a reasonable way to protect the interests of the public. Copyright holders can still hold onto those works they deem valuable, while denying them the ability to sit on works they have no interest in actively maintaining.
Winter of 1997, I spent a lot of time in the gym at Ft. Carson, Colorado. They had these cycles hooked up to displays, and you could pedal around this little game world. You steered by shifting your weight left and right. It was sadly non-violent, but you could race or just explore. You could even go underwater, but it was a lot harder to pedal.
I don't remember the brand of the cycles, but they were pretty cool.
Re:Knoppix is the easiest to use.
on
Ark Linux
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
"Huh? Why? The convenience store down the street has security cameras. If there's a crime committed then the police will see the video. If the camera also happens to catch me browsing through the dirty magazines then I might be embarrased. Therefore the police shouldn't be able to watch security videos, right?"
Listen to what he's actually saying. When the government monitors our daily activities--in this case, web browsing--people have to start second guessing those daily activities. People start asking themselves, "Do I really want the government to know that I'm interested in X?" "Will reading article Y mark me as a possible terrorist threat?" That's what a "chilling effect" means.
Using your own convenience store analogy, imagine that, as part of your police department's procedures for tracking down rapists, they regularly subpoenaed the video tapes of convenience stores in the area, looking for precisely the dirty magazine browsing you describe. Knowing this, people will be even more nervous about flipping through them.
But you might not think of porn browsing as an inalienable right, so a different example may be needed.
Imagine now that your local library is required to keep track of which patrons check out which books. Upon request, any and all police agencies can check out a suspect's reading history for the last five years, to see if they match some "profile."
Would that make you the least bit leery of checking out books on obscure or politically charged issues? If so, congratulations. Your chill has now been put into effect.
Just send them enough output from/dev/urandom, and given enough time they will have every line from the original log. Though not necessarily in the same order.:)
What, exactly, have they been tasked with doing? Keeping illegal packets from reaching our shores?
"Dude, mix these suckers in with an FTP of the latest Mozilla nightly, then ship them off to our friends in New York. Try and stay off any of the major backbones, cuz we're getting some serious heat from the Feds."
"If anyone asks why you're sucking down a file from a server in Portugal, tell them you just hit a mirror at random. And don't use encryption. When they see encryption, they assume you're up to something."
Slashdot Mirror
By default, Mozilla deletes cookies after 90 days, but you can change that in the preferences. If you're saying that MSNBC is doing this, you may want to see if it behaves the same way under other platforms, or change your user-agent to Windows/IE, to see if it's really them.
1) No, it's not faulty autodetection. It's correctly determining which browser is making the request. It's correctly sending different stylesheets based on the user-agent string. The problem is, the stylesheet itself is written in an incomprehensibly stupid way.
The fact that it only sends the broken sheets to Opera 7 would indicate that someone at MSN wants to hurt the reputation of Opera's latest offering.
2) No. Nobody should have to browse with a false user-agent string. Period. The fact is, as much as we like standards, every browser has its own quirks and problems that must be worked around if you want to give all browsers the same experience.
A good webmaster can use the agent string to greatly improve the browsing experience for everyone. But bad ones use the information to mess with users of specific browsers[*], or to deny them access altogether, even though the vast majority of websites I've entered under false pretenses worked just fine.
The whole issue is about respect. Microsoft is not respecting my decision to use a non-IE browser. Coding to standards and ensuring cross-browser correctness shows respect to everyone who views your site. Locking out users of browsers you don't like shows disrespect for those who don't share your browser preferences.
[*] Not always to IE users' benefit. I remember one slashdotter who rigged his site so that anyone using IE ended up listening to the musical stylings of William Shatner.
There's the literal way of looking at it, and then there's the abstract way. You're asking, "Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to serve up whatever HTML they like?"
But in doing so, MSN is making a very specific, very pointed, very inaccurate statement about the Opera web browser. That statement is, "Opera doesn't render web pages correctly."
Since Opera's success relies on public perception of the quality of their product, this amounts to slander. Since this is a Microsoft portal making the statement about a company that competes with Microsoft, it also raises antitrust issues.
I would also like to know how you got it in your head that, if we don't have legal recourse, the only alternative is to shut up and take it. People have a right to complain. People should complain. Opera users, specifically, should complain.
On a related note, I just spent twenty minutes on MSN.com, trying to find some sort of contact address. No dice.
The problem with something like TurboTax is that, while the application itself would be relatively easy to code, certain pieces of the software require highly specialized knowledge to implement (namely, knowledge of the current US and state tax codes).
What should be done? Programmers shouldn't be expected to keep up to date on the entire tax code, and accountants shouldn't be expected to write software.
My solution would be to propose some sort of XML DTD, which could be used to encode a wide variety of tax schemes. The user would probably end up paying a yearly fee to get the DTD from some knowledgeable company (like H&R Block or the producers of TurboTax), but any software that correctly implemented the rules would be able to do your taxes.
In an ideal world, the government itself would be the ones publishing the files, and would also certify the more popular tax software to protect users from legal liability. But I'm probably dreaming.
You must simply master the art of gentle persuasion. For example, if you're trying to sell a humor column to an editor, don't hand it to him and say, "This is some funny stuff. Read it." He won't believe you. Instead, pay his secretary twenty bucks to hand it to him and say, "Hey, this is some funny stuff. You should read it."
You see, most people are sheep. If you tell them something is very, very clever or funny, and they read it and don't find it terribly clever or funny at all, they figure that something must be wrong with them. Perhaps the humor is too deep, or relies on some inside joke that they're not getting. Rather than admit it, they'll pretend to laugh, and then recommend your work to all their friends.
An alternative tactic, if you lack the $20 or the editor lacks the secretary, is to put the column in a manila envelope, along with incriminating pictures of the boss and secretary. But the point is, all you need is to convince one person, and let them do the rest.
[Note to Edmund: This was meant to be funny, though I highly doubt you noticed.]
I've come to the conclusion that the single worst song of all time is "My Sharona" by Knack. Observe:
What is the best way to cope with a bad song in your head? I personally favor slapping my forehead with my palm while shouting "Out! Out! Out!" but I've heard that some people have had great success by stabbing their shoulder with an ice pick.
As an expert on bad songs, I'm sure your insights into this matter can help alleviate a great deal of human suffering.
If you're:
a) very secure and self-confident.
b) late for a meeting.
c) about to explode.
Then it is permissible to use #4 (assuming that no toilet stalls are open). Just remember that people will assume you are:
d) not a heterosexual.*
However, if you do not fit the first three criteria, you are required to stand back and wait for either urinals 1 or 3 to open up, while not actually looking like you're waiting. It is recommended that you use either the Handwashing Feint or the Hair Check Gambit. Your bathroom peers will assume you are either a hypochondriac or really vain, but either is preferable to looking like you're too chicken to just march up into the line.
Under NO condition are you allowed to use urinal #3.
I hope this clears up your question.
* Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You can indeed generalize about every artist in the entire industry. One downloaded MP3 equals one lost sale to a hard-working artist. Janis Ian is obviously lying, since nobody would ever buy something that they can have for free. Obviously her goal is to plunge the United States into a fiery, anarchistic free-for-all, so that it will be ripe for takeover when she launches "Phase Two."
Bunch of commie-loving, Linux-installing, drug-using hippies! All of you!
I used to firmly believe that there could be no more horrible, vomit-inducing sound than Britney singing "Not That Innocent." But now I've realized that something far, far worse could have been created.
Me singing "Not That Innocent."
You're a sick, depraved person. Did you know that?
my_int operator +( const my_int & n1, const my_int & n2 )
{
my_int h3;
h3.data = h2.data - h1.data;
return h3;
}
There's something to be said for such a system, which would allow the length of the copyright to increase along with its market value. But it sounds like Eldred is proposing a one-time tax that would have no other effect on the length of the copyright term. That is, even if the tax is paid, it only grants you another X years, non-renewable.
Hmm... It's so crazy, it just might work.
Look, it contained both "thermodynamic" and "gaussian." How could such a post not be insightful? :)
Technology is technology. If we have the technology to unambiguously identify everyone at or around a murder scene or a kidnapping, we can also identify anyone at or around a protest rally.
Sorry, I just don't trust those who wield such technology to have both the prudence and selflessness to use their power only for the greater good.
1) Non-profit companies generally don't have "becoming for-profit" in their mission statement. It's not like when a private company tries to go public.
2) While using "google" as a verb may not be the queen's English, given this site's technologically literate readership, the author rightly assumed that he would be understood.
3) Posting rants about "proper English" on Slashdot does not make you cool, nor does it make you appear intelligent. Discussing the actual issues rather than taking issue with minor flaws in the presentation will make you appear more intelligent. Even if you're not.
Having a jerkful nature shouldn't be suable, but some of the things jerks do most definitely should be. Now, the fact that one lone bastard can single-handedly shut down a small message board has always been just one of the hazards of the online world. The question is, is that the way things should be?
On one hand, this sort of lawsuit could be easily abused. On the other hand, there is a very disturbing lack of consequences for online behavior right now.
In my gut, I side with the site owners. They're just trying to run a helpful, tame website, which keeps getting "vandalized" in a sense.
The one thing I don't get is, why not just require registration in order to post?
The point of basing the renewal fee on a percentage of gross profits is precisely so that retaining rights to a more popular work is more expensive than retaining rights to a less popular work.
For the vast majority of works, it's very unlikely that it would be worthwhile for the owner to renew the work. With less popular works, it's likely that what money they did manage to make was within the first few years, and there's no way they can recoup the money it would take to renew it.
The point I'm trying to get across is that corporations like Disney are going to let their most valuable works go without a bloody, vicious fight. If we can make it possible for them to retain a few prized possessions while still remitting most of their works to the public domain, it may go easier on us.
Right now, it's an all-or-nothing, David vs. Goliath battle. Don't forget, there's a reason everyone expected Goliath to win.
Finally, the purpose of renewal would be to continue generating profits. So as the work ages, it will become more expensive to renew, even as the value of the renewal diminishes. At some point, every work would become too expensive to keep, and would enter the public domain.
The Yahoo story seemed to grant the assumption that old, popular works like "Casablanca" and "The Wizard of Oz" need continued copyright protection. Now, I would normally argue even this point, but let's accept it. After all, these works are still valuable to their current owners.
The question is, how valuable?
For every work of art from the 20's and 30's that is still a major money maker, there are probably a thousand works which have already exhausted their value to the copyright holder. There's not sufficient interest to make it worthwhile to market it. But these works could still be valuable sources for new ideas and inspirations, historical research, and what not.
Is it worth locking up these thousands of works, making republication illegal even as the originals are ravaged by time, just to protect the few works which still provide a revenue stream?
Hell no. But if we have to strike a compromise in order to enrich the public domain and save the vast majority of our cultural heritage, then I propose this:
Repeal the CTEA. In its place, set up a system where the original copyright term applies to every work, but that term can be extended for any given work.
Since I believe in the importance of the public domain, extending the copyright on a work shouldn't be a trivial proposition. Copyright holders should be charged a fee that mirrors its value to the public; say, 1-2% of all profits attributable to the work in question over its lifetime. My reasoning is, if a copyright holder doesn't expect to make even that much from the work over the next twenty years, then revoking the copyright doesn't significantly hurt the copyright holder.
If an all-or-nothing approach ends up getting us nothing, then we have to find some sort of middle ground. This strikes me as a reasonable way to protect the interests of the public. Copyright holders can still hold onto those works they deem valuable, while denying them the ability to sit on works they have no interest in actively maintaining.
Think of it as your computer recognizing that you should get off line and get some fresh air, then reacting accordingly.
Winter of 1997, I spent a lot of time in the gym at Ft. Carson, Colorado. They had these cycles hooked up to displays, and you could pedal around this little game world. You steered by shifting your weight left and right. It was sadly non-violent, but you could race or just explore. You could even go underwater, but it was a lot harder to pedal.
I don't remember the brand of the cycles, but they were pretty cool.
Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
There's a project called Worldforge that has some interesting things going on. You may want to check it out.
I've heard rumors that they want to implement P2P for the game media, but not for the game itself.
Using your own convenience store analogy, imagine that, as part of your police department's procedures for tracking down rapists, they regularly subpoenaed the video tapes of convenience stores in the area, looking for precisely the dirty magazine browsing you describe. Knowing this, people will be even more nervous about flipping through them.
But you might not think of porn browsing as an inalienable right, so a different example may be needed.
Imagine now that your local library is required to keep track of which patrons check out which books. Upon request, any and all police agencies can check out a suspect's reading history for the last five years, to see if they match some "profile."
Would that make you the least bit leery of checking out books on obscure or politically charged issues? If so, congratulations. Your chill has now been put into effect.
Just send them enough output from /dev/urandom, and given enough time they will have every line from the original log. Though not necessarily in the same order. :)
What, exactly, have they been tasked with doing? Keeping illegal packets from reaching our shores?
"Dude, mix these suckers in with an FTP of the latest Mozilla nightly, then ship them off to our friends in New York. Try and stay off any of the major backbones, cuz we're getting some serious heat from the Feds."
"If anyone asks why you're sucking down a file from a server in Portugal, tell them you just hit a mirror at random. And don't use encryption. When they see encryption, they assume you're up to something."