What we have here is yet another web page which won't display correctly on most browsers. When will they learn that HTML cna be written to adapt to the pixel width of the browser, isntead of assuming that everybody has the same high-res system that they do? Sheesh.
Given how communist dictatorships seem to habitually slaughter large portions of their citizens (Soviet Union - 20 Million, China - 30 Million, Cambodia - 2 Million, etc., etc., etc.), I think not. You, of course, assume that you would not be one of the slaughterees. I'm not so sure.
Sheesh, have you no sense of proportion? Look up in the sky. See the clouds? Condensed water vapor. Consider that the atmosphere currently has probably billions of tons of water vapor (no, I don't feel like doing the math). And you worry about a drop or so per device?
This, of course, is the natural (unintended?) consequence of the current campaign finance laws. If you limit the amount of money that thousands of small and medium-size donors can give to a candidate, they will naturally turn to the few who can donate large amounts by exploiting loopholes in the law. And there are always loopholes. Remove the per-person donation limits and the large donors will lose influence.
On a different note (and I don't remember if I read this in a book, or a
newspaper) don't some of the government agencies use minutely different
wording for documents they hand out, so they can try to track leaks?
You read it in a Tom Clancy novel. IIRC, it was "Patriot Games" and the technique was called a "Canary Trap".
Truth or fiction? Who knows.
It was said before, but bears repeating. Bush has been in office less than a month. All the government actions you are bitching about were done by people appointed by Clinton. Not Bush. Clinton! Think! The precious Democrats who can do no wrong have spent 8 years trampling your rights one by one. And all you can do is bitch about Bush? You deserve whatever misfortune befalls you. "Stupidity is a capital offense" (I forget who said that.)
There is absolutely no reason why the TEXTAREA widget in your browser couldn't be written to generate when you select BOLD. Of course, it should be somehow optional, since the whole idea of HTML is that neither the server nor the browser gives a rat's ass what is running at the other end of the net.
The only problem, of course, is that when you type
your letter on the typewriter, you had better not make one single solitary typing error. Especially one which you don't notice until wayyyyy later down the page. Then it's step 2A: remove paper, throw away, go back to step2 and try again.
Re:Fix the DMCA: Support McCain - Feingold
on
DVD Case Follow-Up
·
· Score: 1
IMHO the real reason that large instistutions have such influence over politicians (via their large-dollar contributions) is that people are not allowed to donate what they want to a politician they like. A thousand people inclined to donate $5K to their favorite pol would outweigh most corporations and PACs (since none of them would be likely to donate $5 million). The solution to the problem of one large contributor is to allow an army of small contributors!
It's the current campaign finance laws that produce the current mess by making it illegal for a small donor to donate a significant sum to a candidate he passionately favors. So instead of being beholden to thousands of small donors a candidate ends up beholden to one large one.
This is a direct (and predicted) consequence of the "reforms" passed after the Watergate mess.
Restricting contributions in any manner only increases the influence of those groups whose contributions are unrestricted. And no lawmaker can predict which groups will form and contribute after he defines the restricted groups.
So there is no real way to restrict the total amount of money spent on a single contest, only to change where that money comes from.
People who complain about the "excess" amount of money beign spent in elections should try a little math -- it's a couple of bucks per vote -- chicken feed.
The only useful campaign finance "reform" would be no restrictions at all, and full (and early) disclosure of all donations. Take the money and let the press look for scandals.
Again, and for the umpteenth time: If your foolish content is worth going after, I write a "browser" which LIES and includes what your dumb script thinks is a valid URL as the referrer. Your dumb script has no way of knowing I'm lying. I get your content. Game over. This is the way the Internet works. Live with it.
This only works if you are trying to "protect"
information of little value. Because if it's worth
going after, I will write a script or program
which looks exactly like a valid browser to your
little script. Referrer and all. People have got
to realize that neither end of the HTTP
transaction has any control over the other end,
and that either end can lie its sool head off
without detection.
The free market views a monopoly as newtwork error and attempts to route around it. This will usually happen absent government stepping in and fouling up the process.
Actually, No Oil = No CHEAP Plastics.
You (the chemist) can still make 'em, they'll just cost more. BTW, for most of the last century, the official prediction has always been "we only have 25 (or so) years of oil reserves". But guess what happened? We kept finding more. Progress occurs in more fields than just electronics.
And yet... We are all living longer and healthier than our grandparents. So either the toxins aren't, or there are some awfully good things around to balance them. Take your pick.
Err... It costs money to provide Internet access. That money has to come from somewhere. If you don't want to pay for it, don't fucking order it. But don't expect my money (taxes or telecom charges) to pay for your use. You have the freedom to buy what you want. Not to force me to buy what you want.
Was it Heinlein that said There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
(TINSTAAFL)?
Actually, it was TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Luch). But close enough. And certainly closer than/.s fortune cookie attributing it to Freidman.
Of course complying with robots.txt is voluntary. It has to be. That's the nature of the web. What happens on the client (browser, spider, etc) side is completely independent of what happens on the server side. But people continue to think their server can "force" the browsers to do soemthing, or their browser can download a CGI, etc, etc, etc. Why don't people understand?
Sorry, but you can't stuff this toothpaste back in the tube. Once the knowledge of how to devise a secure algorythm is available, secure algorythms will be written and used. You can't stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
What we have here is yet another web page which won't display correctly on most browsers. When will they learn that HTML cna be written to adapt to the pixel width of the browser, isntead of assuming that everybody has the same high-res system that they do? Sheesh.
Given how communist dictatorships seem to habitually
slaughter large portions of their citizens (Soviet Union - 20 Million, China - 30 Million, Cambodia - 2 Million, etc., etc., etc.), I think not. You, of course, assume that you would not be one of the slaughterees. I'm not so sure.
Learn to spell "capitalist". Sheesh.
Aka "Canary Trap" for all you Tom Clancy fans.
Sheesh, have you no sense of proportion? Look up in the sky. See the clouds? Condensed water vapor. Consider that the atmosphere currently has probably billions of tons of water vapor (no, I don't feel like doing the math). And you worry about a drop or so per device?
Jesus H. Christ -- learn how to spell.
This, of course, is the natural (unintended?) consequence of the current campaign finance laws. If you limit the amount of money that thousands of small and medium-size donors can give to a candidate, they will naturally turn to the few who can donate large amounts by exploiting loopholes in the law. And there are always loopholes. Remove the per-person donation limits and the large donors will lose influence.
Nice try. But I think you are the only person in the country who thinks 200-character lines are neat and easy to read. Sheesh.
Err... We didn't break Enigma in WWI, it was WWII (2 for those who don't know Roman Numerals). Sheesh.
Truth or fiction? Who knows.
It was said before, but bears repeating. Bush has been in office less than a month. All the government actions you are bitching about were done by people appointed by Clinton. Not Bush. Clinton! Think! The precious Democrats who can do no wrong have spent 8 years trampling your rights one by one. And all you can do is bitch about Bush? You deserve whatever misfortune befalls you. "Stupidity is a capital offense" (I forget who said that.)
There is absolutely no reason why the TEXTAREA widget in your browser couldn't be written to generate when you select BOLD. Of course, it should be somehow optional, since the whole idea of HTML is that neither the server nor the browser gives a rat's ass what is running at the other end of the net.
Only governments can levy fines, not commercial entities. "fine" == "Pay us or we put you in jail."
The only problem, of course, is that when you type your letter on the typewriter, you had better not make one single solitary typing error. Especially one which you don't notice until wayyyyy later down the page. Then it's step 2A: remove paper, throw away, go back to step2 and try again.
IMHO the real reason that large instistutions have such influence over politicians (via their large-dollar contributions) is that people are not allowed to donate what they want to a politician they like. A thousand people inclined to donate $5K to their favorite pol would outweigh most corporations and PACs (since none of them would be likely to donate $5 million). The solution to the problem of one large contributor is to allow an army of small contributors!
Restricting contributions in any manner only increases the influence of those groups whose contributions are unrestricted. And no lawmaker can predict which groups will form and contribute after he defines the restricted groups. So there is no real way to restrict the total amount of money spent on a single contest, only to change where that money comes from.
People who complain about the "excess" amount of money beign spent in elections should try a little math -- it's a couple of bucks per vote -- chicken feed.
The only useful campaign finance "reform" would be no restrictions at all, and full (and early) disclosure of all donations. Take the money and let the press look for scandals.
Again, and for the umpteenth time: If your foolish content is worth going after, I write a "browser" which LIES and includes what your dumb script thinks is a valid URL as the referrer. Your dumb script has no way of knowing I'm lying. I get your content. Game over. This is the way the Internet works. Live with it.
This only works if you are trying to "protect"
information of little value. Because if it's worth
going after, I will write a script or program
which looks exactly like a valid browser to your
little script. Referrer and all. People have got
to realize that neither end of the HTTP
transaction has any control over the other end,
and that either end can lie its sool head off
without detection.
The free market views a monopoly as newtwork error and attempts to route around it. This will usually happen absent government stepping in and fouling up the process.
Actually, No Oil = No CHEAP Plastics.
You (the chemist) can still make 'em, they'll just cost more. BTW, for most of the last century, the official prediction has always been "we only have 25 (or so) years of oil reserves". But guess what happened? We kept finding more. Progress occurs in more fields than just electronics.
And yet... We are all living longer and healthier than our grandparents. So either the toxins aren't, or there are some awfully good things around to balance them. Take your pick.
Err... It costs money to provide Internet access. That money has to come from somewhere. If you don't want to pay for it, don't fucking order it. But don't expect my money (taxes or telecom charges) to pay for your use. You have the freedom to buy what you want. Not to force me to buy what you want.
Was it Heinlein that said There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TINSTAAFL)? Actually, it was TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Luch). But close enough. And certainly closer than /.s fortune cookie attributing it to Freidman.
Of course complying with robots.txt is voluntary. It has to be. That's the nature of the web. What happens on the client (browser, spider, etc) side is completely independent of what happens on the server side. But people continue to think their server can "force" the browsers to do soemthing, or their browser can download a CGI, etc, etc, etc. Why don't people understand?
Sorry, but you can't stuff this toothpaste back in the tube. Once the knowledge of how to devise a secure algorythm is available, secure algorythms will be written and used. You can't stop it.