Wow, that's great! All I have to do is switch to a Macintosh! That's a great solution, thanks!
At home I use netscape under Linux, and I run a script that cleans out my cookies.txt file often. But I shouldn't have to do that, the browser should do it for me.
At work I have to use Windows for testing purposes(I work on a Sun).
Even if you turn off one-click, the person who stole your cookies can just turn it back on.
The #1 feature I want in a browser is a check box that says "Delete all cookies when quitting browser". Actually, I would really love more fine-grained control, but just this one feature would be enough.
I'd like someone to show me an example of real software(i.e word processor, database, game, compiler, OS) that is written in Java.
While this notion of 'real software' strikes me as flamebait, I'll go ahead and bite.
I recently came accross JEdit. Its a pretty cool Java text editor.
You might want to try Ganymede, which is an extensible directory management system written in Java. Oh, and it's a database too.
You can also look at java.sun.com for a bunch of stories about web sites that use Java on the back end.
The java compiler is written in java.
Mike
Another big reason- network externalities
on
Why Do Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
The main reason I am drawn to open source development is the chance to bulid something that a lot of people will use. I write a lot of throw away scripts for myself, but when I work on something big, I would rather take advantage of all the other programmers out there than just do it all myself.
For example, if I wanted to write some web browsing software, it would be better to contribute to the Mozilla project than to build my own browser. That way, there is a chance that Mozilla(and by extension, my work) will take off and be a big success. Then everyone will have access to my work, including me. If I keep it to myself, then I am the only one who ever gets to use my tool, and therefore no one will ever develop anything for it.
Look at it another way. If you wanted to write a new kernel for x86 machines that would run like UNIX, you could just do the work and then keep it to yourself. But if you release the code, then your work has a chance of becoming a standard and a world wide platform with thousands of developers working on your project. Releasing source taps into a huge network of developers.
(I've haven't tried the old version yet, so I don't know if it will help or not.)
Mike
Re:Swing - Good idea, badly implemented
on
Swing
·
· Score: 1
Its not the inheritance, it's the MVC architecture. Every time you create a simple JButton, it creates a bunch of objects to describe the layout and functionality. While this is incredibly customizable and flexible, it also makes the the whole thing slow.
1.3 should be better, but last I checked the only version out was for windows. This is a temporary lag while they consolidate the Solaris builds, but it still keeps me from trying it out.
BTW, Swing! keeps getting faster and faster. When I was using the original point releases, it was much slower than it is now. As it is now, any pentium 2/celeron type machine should be able to draw swing components pretty fast. Almost as fast as native code. If your app is slower than that, then you are probably doing something wrong.:)
Or using a builder tool, instead of doing the layout work yourself.
In this context, "lightweight" means that the components are completely defined in java. Swing components are lightweight because they use the java paint() method to draw themselves on the screen.
awt components, on the other hand, are "heavyweight". They have an operating system peer that defines their behavior and appearance. java.awt.Button, for example, looks different in windows that it does in Motif, because the actual button is created by an operating system call.
With Swing!, all the components look the same regardless of the underlying operating system. This is a good thing (most of the time).
I downloaded that power tools thing you are talking about. It looks like it will make it pretty easy to add sites to the restricted/trusted list, but it still won't add the sites that the ad GIF's are being loaded from.
Also, if you manually edit the site list, you can enter a domain name and it will include all the sites in that domain. For example, if you want to block www1.company.com and www2.company.com, you can just enter *.company.com and it will block everything in that domain.
Unfortunately, it only works for domains with one period. You can't block *.ads.company.com.
I do the same thing, but I don't allow cookies in the default(internet) zone. If a site ever complains "you need to enable cookies", then I put them in my trusted sites folder if I think it is worth going to that site.
Actually, I allow per-session cookies but not persistent ones. Most well-behaved web sites are ok with this, but I wish more people would follow a more polite cookie checking scheme:
if (!set_persistent_cookie) if (!set_temp_cookie) show_the_you_need_cookie_page
Um, M14 says "Only accept cookies that get sent back to the originating server". I don't think they changed the meaning of "originating server" by swapping the location of "only" and "accept".
Can you test the version of Mozilla that you are running? I would be interested to find out if they changed this "originating server" business to mean what everyone assumes it does instead of what it actually means.
Actually, now that I think about it, I am more scared than ever. Does that radio button mean that cookies are normally allowed to be sent to a non-originating server? I fail to see why anyone would ever want to allow that.
That doesn't work in M14. There is an "Only accept cookies from originating server" box, but as discussed numerous times on this thread, ads.doubleclick.com is the originating server for the image file.
I tested this as follows(in M14 on win95):
I opened up the cookie manager in M14 and deleted all my cookies.
I clicked the box that says "only accept cookies from the originating server".
I went to www.washingtonpost.com.
I opened up the cookie manager again, and there was a fresh new cookie baked up by doubleclick.net
I hope that Mozilla offers some new solutions to the cookie problem. Currently, I use IE 5 on windows, specifically because it has better support for denying cookies. I use the "Security Zones" to deny most sites from offering me any cookies. I have the sites set up as follows:
Internet This is the default. No persistent cookies, allow temporary cookies.
Trusted sites This is where I stick sites that I want to allow cookies from, such as slashdot.org. I reset the "trusted" settings so they are more like the standard ones. I allow any cookies from these sites.
Restricted This is where doubleclick et al go. I don't allow anything from these sites; no cookies, no javascript, no java, nothing.
I know that this is not a perfect system, but for me it has worked better than using/etc/hosts.
On Linux I have to use netscape, so I have some cron jobs that clean out my cookies.txt file. This is far from safe, but at least they can't track me for days.
The officer thought he was reaching for a gun; it turned out to be a wallet. I think police officers have a right to defend themselves. This obviously wasn't a case of the police harrassing an innocent bystander, like Diallo or Rodney King.
If a police offer tries to detain you, you are not allowed to run away. That's resisting arrest. Do you really believe that a police officer shouldn't use his weapon when he is invloved in a physical struggle with a drug dealer?
It's certainly possible that the police did something bad here and are trying to cover it up. But it's dishonest to assume that the police did something wrong just because a suspect turned out to be unarmed.
I think you are exagerating things here. That second man killed in the Bronx was in possesion of heroin. He was stopped by the police, and tried to flee, and struggled with the officer. Only one shot was fired. That sounds like a justifiable response to me. It's nothing at all like the Diallo case.
As far as your other points go, granted things are as good here as they could be, but we are certainly more free than China, for example. There is a worrying trend away from privacy towards a sense of security these days, however. I think that is a false dichtomy; you don't have to choose one or the other, because you can have both.
One way to improve things would be to allocate a different set of negative and positive points. When I have points, I try to use them all to mark posts up. Occasionally I have to mark something down, but I try to use them positively since most people probably only read 3's anyway.
It would be nice to have a big bag of negative points, because its usually really clear which posts should be moderated down. Finding the good posts is the real trick.
Personally, I think Karma is a bad idea. Why should someone get a 2 just because they posted something interesting in the past? Give out more moderation points, and you won't have to give anyone a head start. The good stuff will filter up quickly.
Actually, it just says that Reuters/AP contributed to the article. That means Fox used some AP sources, but Fox is still primarily responsible for content.
The console gaming market and computer gaming market are largely different markets & genres.
You are missing the boat. All of your arguments work great against the N64 and the Playstation. But the Playstation 2 is a whole new beast, and that is the point of the article.
Its twice as fast as a Pentium III 733! Its modular, meaning you can plug in a cable modem, dsl modem, analog modem, or what ever else they come up with. It has USB ports, so you can plug in a mouse, a keyboard, a joystick, and whatever else you want.
That is the point. The P2 is blurring the line between game console and computer. It might not replace the PC for those of us with multiple boxes running linux and home networks, but it might for people who just want to get on the internet. And watch DVD's.
>Anyway, I'm betting that her art work >material-gathering research would have been >banned under this bill. Censorship stinks.
Actually, the article specifically said that using the internet for school-related work was fine. She even gave an example. (I'd quote it, but I'm *sure* that you all read the article already.) So your friend would be allowed to download all the porn she wants.
Hmm, Maybe this bill will spark a large increase in art class enrollment...
This is just for people working on computer security issues. And after you graduate, you have to go work for the government, just like joining the army after ROTC.
>What are the odds he will "change his mind" and >TPM will be available around 1 December 2000?
That is exactly what everyone has said about the first three movies for the last two christmases. And we didn't get those, either.
So I would say, the odds are zero.
As far as I'm concerned, screw TPM. The Matrix was a better movie anyway, and I would rather support a movie that adds a lot of extra features to the DVD and then charges less than $20 for it.
No, you are completely wrong. Sun doesn't remove method calls; Sun deprecates them. When you try to compile you will get deprecation warnings, but it will still work.
And anything that is already compiled will work, too.
I can see why you never went back to it; if you really looked at 1.0 and decided to wait for 1.2, you would have been waiting for 3+ years!
Anyway, if you had any clue as to what you are talking about, you would realize that anything you developed for 1.0 would work fine with 1.2. You might get some deprecation warnings at compile time, but it would still compile and run.
For Sun at least, "innovation" doesn't mean "make incompatible".
You are missing the point. When your girlfriend uses the Comet cursor, then Comet finds out when people go to her web page. That means that Comet is using your girlfriend's page to track people. Get it?
That's why it's so bad. Comet can find out where anybody who uses their software goes, without the consent of either the reader OR the page author!
Your girlfriend doesn't have to be in on it. That's the whole problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's great! All I have to do is switch to a Macintosh! That's a great solution, thanks!
At home I use netscape under Linux, and I run a script that cleans out my cookies.txt file often. But I shouldn't have to do that, the browser should do it for me.
At work I have to use Windows for testing purposes(I work on a Sun).
Mike
Even if you turn off one-click, the person who stole your cookies can just turn it back on.
The #1 feature I want in a browser is a check box that says "Delete all cookies when quitting browser". Actually, I would really love more fine-grained control, but just this one feature would be enough.
I am aware that Opera has this feature.
Mike
While this notion of 'real software' strikes me as flamebait, I'll go ahead and bite.
I recently came accross JEdit. Its a pretty cool Java text editor.
You might want to try Ganymede, which is an extensible directory management system written in Java. Oh, and it's a database too.
You can also look at java.sun.com for a bunch of stories about web sites that use Java on the back end.
The java compiler is written in java.
Mike
The main reason I am drawn to open source development is the chance to bulid something that a lot of people will use. I write a lot of throw away scripts for myself, but when I work on something big, I would rather take advantage of all the other programmers out there than just do it all myself.
For example, if I wanted to write some web browsing software, it would be better to contribute to the Mozilla project than to build my own browser. That way, there is a chance that Mozilla(and by extension, my work) will take off and be a big success. Then everyone will have access to my work, including me. If I keep it to myself, then I am the only one who ever gets to use my tool, and therefore no one will ever develop anything for it.
Look at it another way. If you wanted to write a new kernel for x86 machines that would run like UNIX, you could just do the work and then keep it to yourself. But if you release the code, then your work has a chance of becoming a standard and a world wide platform with thousands of developers working on your project. Releasing source taps into a huge network of developers.
Mike
Check out gnutella.wego.com for details.
(I've haven't tried the old version yet, so I don't know if it will help or not.)
Mike
Its not the inheritance, it's the MVC architecture. Every time you create a simple JButton, it creates a bunch of objects to describe the layout and functionality. While this is incredibly customizable and flexible, it also makes the the whole thing slow.
:)
1.3 should be better, but last I checked the only version out was for windows. This is a temporary lag while they consolidate the Solaris builds, but it still keeps me from trying it out.
BTW, Swing! keeps getting faster and faster. When I was using the original point releases, it was much slower than it is now. As it is now, any pentium 2/celeron type machine should be able to draw swing components pretty fast. Almost as fast as native code. If your app is slower than that, then you are probably doing something wrong.
Or using a builder tool, instead of doing the layout work yourself.
Mike
In this context, "lightweight" means that the components are completely defined in java. Swing components are lightweight because they use the java paint() method to draw themselves on the screen.
awt components, on the other hand, are "heavyweight". They have an operating system peer that defines their behavior and appearance. java.awt.Button, for example, looks different in windows that it does in Motif, because the actual button is created by an operating system call.
With Swing!, all the components look the same regardless of the underlying operating system. This is a good thing (most of the time).
Mike
Also, if you manually edit the site list, you can enter a domain name and it will include all the sites in that domain. For example, if you want to block www1.company.com and www2.company.com, you can just enter *.company.com and it will block everything in that domain.
Unfortunately, it only works for domains with one period. You can't block *.ads.company.com.
Mike
I do the same thing, but I don't allow cookies in the default(internet) zone. If a site ever complains "you need to enable cookies", then I put them in my trusted sites folder if I think it is worth going to that site.
Actually, I allow per-session cookies but not persistent ones. Most well-behaved web sites are ok with this, but I wish more people would follow a more polite cookie checking scheme:
if (!set_persistent_cookie)
if (!set_temp_cookie)
show_the_you_need_cookie_page
Mike
Um, M14 says "Only accept cookies that get sent back to the originating server". I don't think they changed the meaning of "originating server" by swapping the location of "only" and "accept".
Can you test the version of Mozilla that you are running? I would be interested to find out if they changed this "originating server" business to mean what everyone assumes it does instead of what it actually means.
Actually, now that I think about it, I am more scared than ever. Does that radio button mean that cookies are normally allowed to be sent to a non-originating server? I fail to see why anyone would ever want to allow that.
Mike
I tested this as follows(in M14 on win95):
- I opened up the cookie manager in M14 and deleted all my cookies.
- I clicked the box that says "only accept cookies from the originating server".
- I went to www.washingtonpost.com.
- I opened up the cookie manager again, and there was a fresh new cookie baked up by doubleclick.net
I hope that Mozilla offers some new solutions to the cookie problem. Currently, I use IE 5 on windows, specifically because it has better support for denying cookies. I use the "Security Zones" to deny most sites from offering me any cookies. I have the sites set up as follows:- Internet This is the default. No persistent cookies, allow temporary cookies.
- Trusted sites This is where I stick sites that I want to allow cookies from, such as slashdot.org. I reset the "trusted" settings so they are more like the standard ones. I allow any cookies from these sites.
- Restricted This is where doubleclick et al go. I don't allow anything from these sites; no cookies, no javascript, no java, nothing.
I know that this is not a perfect system, but for me it has worked better than usingOn Linux I have to use netscape, so I have some cron jobs that clean out my cookies.txt file. This is far from safe, but at least they can't track me for days.
mike
Now you are just being silly.
The officer thought he was reaching for a gun; it turned out to be a wallet. I think police officers have a right to defend themselves. This obviously wasn't a case of the police harrassing an innocent bystander, like Diallo or Rodney King.
If a police offer tries to detain you, you are not allowed to run away. That's resisting arrest. Do you really believe that a police officer shouldn't use his weapon when he is invloved in a physical struggle with a drug dealer?
It's certainly possible that the police did something bad here and are trying to cover it up. But it's dishonest to assume that the police did something wrong just because a suspect turned out to be unarmed.
Mike
I think you are exagerating things here. That second man killed in the Bronx was in possesion of heroin. He was stopped by the police, and tried to flee, and struggled with the officer. Only one shot was fired. That sounds like a justifiable response to me. It's nothing at all like the Diallo case.
As far as your other points go, granted things are as good here as they could be, but we are certainly more free than China, for example. There is a worrying trend away from privacy towards a sense of security these days, however. I think that is a false dichtomy; you don't have to choose one or the other, because you can have both.
Mike
One way to improve things would be to allocate a different set of negative and positive points. When I have points, I try to use them all to mark posts up. Occasionally I have to mark something down, but I try to use them positively since most people probably only read 3's anyway.
It would be nice to have a big bag of negative points, because its usually really clear which posts should be moderated down. Finding the good posts is the real trick.
Personally, I think Karma is a bad idea. Why should someone get a 2 just because they posted something interesting in the past? Give out more moderation points, and you won't have to give anyone a head start. The good stuff will filter up quickly.
Actually, it just says that Reuters/AP contributed to the article. That means Fox used some AP sources, but Fox is still primarily responsible for content.
Mike
You are missing the boat. All of your arguments work great against the N64 and the Playstation. But the Playstation 2 is a whole new beast, and that is the point of the article.
Its twice as fast as a Pentium III 733! Its modular, meaning you can plug in a cable modem, dsl modem, analog modem, or what ever else they come up with. It has USB ports, so you can plug in a mouse, a keyboard, a joystick, and whatever else you want.
That is the point. The P2 is blurring the line between game console and computer. It might not replace the PC for those of us with multiple boxes running linux and home networks, but it might for people who just want to get on the internet. And watch DVD's.
Mike
But it does matter, because there are diferent comparison operators: ==(numbers) and eq(strings).
Mike
>Anyway, I'm betting that her art work >material-gathering research would have been >banned under this bill. Censorship stinks.
Actually, the article specifically said that using the internet for school-related work was fine. She even gave an example. (I'd quote it, but I'm *sure* that you all read the article already.) So your friend would be allowed to download all the porn she wants.
Hmm, Maybe this bill will spark a large increase in art class enrollment...
Mike
This is just for people working on computer security issues. And after you graduate, you have to go work for the government, just like joining the army after ROTC.
Mike
>What are the odds he will "change his mind" and
>TPM will be available around 1 December 2000?
That is exactly what everyone has said about the first three movies for the last two christmases. And we didn't get those, either.
So I would say, the odds are zero.
As far as I'm concerned, screw TPM. The Matrix was a better movie anyway, and I would rather support a movie that adds a lot of extra features to the DVD and then charges less than $20 for it.
Mike
No, you are completely wrong. Sun doesn't remove method calls; Sun deprecates them. When you try to compile you will get deprecation warnings, but it will still work.
And anything that is already compiled will work, too.
Mike
I can see why you never went back to it; if you really looked at 1.0 and decided to wait for 1.2, you would have been waiting for 3+ years!
Anyway, if you had any clue as to what you are talking about, you would realize that anything you developed for 1.0 would work fine with 1.2. You might get some deprecation warnings at compile time, but it would still compile and run.
For Sun at least, "innovation" doesn't mean "make incompatible".
Mike
You are missing the point. When your girlfriend uses the Comet cursor, then Comet finds out when people go to her web page. That means that Comet is using your girlfriend's page to track people. Get it?
That's why it's so bad. Comet can find out where anybody who uses their software goes, without the consent of either the reader OR the page author!
Your girlfriend doesn't have to be in on it. That's the whole problem.
Mike
I don't know if vi and TeX are the best examples of Open Source goodness.
I think more people would agree that the best examples of quality Open Source projects include (but are are not limited to) perl, Apache, and Python.
Mike
When Ie5 crashes on my NT box, it never takes the shell with it.
It does crash though, at least every day. Almost as much as Netscape 4 did on Linux.
Mike