"there are hundreds of users for whom it's just one more thing to search through in the hunt and peck."
If you don't know the ins and outs of the keyboard you're using, who are you to criticise either the layout or the characters included?
"It would make more sense to have special programmer's keypads,"
Oh yeah, right. Thanks for the discrimination, but no thanks. I expect a keyboard to be able to generate everything in the ASCII charset with minimal fuss, I don't need some marketroid hippie like you to come along and tell me *I*'m the weirdo.
"You come across like it is only happening to you".
Not, well you come across like a gratuitously offensive idiot, but at least I don't feel the need to resort to the lowest of forms of humour to press the point.
"Maybe work on fixing that instead of crying in your beer."
Perhaps if you bothered reading my article you'd like to justify where it appeared to be such.
"One gig is a _drop_ buddy."
Tell you what. Go patronise someone else with your idea of "big" numbers. And don't come back until you have something useful to say, either. Pathetic little flaming troll.
"That assumes the browser can render the content properly based on the CSS."
Actually, it doesn't. A browser is free to discard none, some or more of your hard-worked CSS efforts. It doesn't have to implement anything other than a given standard - and pragmatism says "as well as it can". And an individual browser is totally free to supply alternative CSS altogether without violating what it should be doing, so really you should be concentrating on getting the content in place and not worrying about fancy pretty pictures.
HTML is not ODBC; it is not an adaptive API, you don't get to ask "do I have support for IFRAME?" or "will the browser get my dodgy extensions on top of CSS2 correct?" in the same way as you make SQLGetInfo() calls to ask "what is this database's name for the `date' type?". Or to be more accurate, there are some half-baked attempts to get this data back to the server - either relying on what the browser declares to be its USER_AGENT or rewriting your page in javascript - that are both so fallible that the stress and aggravation to all created by the error-conditions really outweighs the minimal effort required to check what you're forcing on the rest of the world.
"Mozilla... has bugs and quirks" Yes, I'm sure it does. I use the gecko engine out of preference for the way it makes things look, but have found at least twice that actually getting down and settling on a specific DOCTYPE tag and checking and fixing validity of both *HTML version and CSS, it actually behaves exactly as you tell it to - enforcing XHTML-1.0 Strict is just a set of criteria to write by and it tells whatever browser what you've written. It's been the case that moving from some "looks OK" mixture of almost-X-html plus "should probably work if I remembered half the words right" CSS to iron out the bugs, and bingo, the page looks spot-on what I had in mind.
Really, it makes me wonder what people are trying to cover up - are there really people who provide webpages using CSS but who don't know what `float: left' or `clear: right' do??
"well sorry, it takes some people days to notice that their server isn't even on the network anymore."
In some ways, I think it's quite reassuring that there are people out there with NON-immediate demands. I'm used to processing stuff quite often in an interrupt-driven manner, as it's the only way that seems to work. Being able to tell a car-electrician garage that they could take their time over diagnosing and fixing things rates amongst the finer things in life, to me.
However, I'm firmly of the opinion that it doesn't apply to any box put on the 'Net. If you can't have someone respond to abuse, postmaster or hostmaster as the case may be, in a more timely fashion - maybe about 12hrs or so - then you shouldn't be putting it online. If you're (generic) going to ignore security updates - most people seem to be putting them around in a responsible fashion, these days - then kindly don't inflict your laziness on the other inhabitants of the 'Net, because that *is* your responsibility, however much one might want to dodge it.
Yes, well, that's all very well in your own world. Unfortunately, there are those of us out here who measured 873Kb/s of 1434/UDP going past the back end of eth0 from 3 separate IP#s in the same rack and watched the local router have problems coping - either with that, and/or external scans, or with traffic from other/24 networks, or with filtering all the above, causing major loss of connectivity at several times for the next 12hrs or more. My rsync server pushed 1.0Gb compared to the usual 1.7Gb at that time, that day. So don't forgive us for thinking it worthy of further discussion.
"Suppose (as is actually the case), browser bugs cause your single page to look rubbish in all browsers."
Don't use that feature of whatever standard it was, then. It's just not possible in practice. Especially given that your question included "all browsers" - there really is NO distinction to be made on a per-browser basis then, is there?!:)
"It is EXTREMELY important for some businesses to have the save look and feel on as many browsers as possible."
Given that I can, and occasionally do, override what websites dictate, why do companies go a ton(ne) on attempting to dictate more? It is the job of the browser to render content how the user wishes, and the job of the site to dish up content. After all, are you going to cater for all combinations of colour-blindness or even blindness altogether? On all platforms? Is it something to do with appearance over content? If so, rest assured I won't be staying on that site for very long. I actively reject companies based on their website policies: notably a car-insurance company had such messed-up javascript that I couldn't follow a link and went elsewhere, without even getting a quote; another company arbitrarily closes down its online insurance-quoting system outside "office hours", so those of us returning home on a Saturday tea-time looking to do a little browsing are forced elsewhere (that lost them about GBP800); and at least one major UK-based building-society has arbitrarily rejected galeon and konqueror for no good reason when their standards-compliance was *better* than NS4, even in those early days!
The definition of a valid browser says nothing about *how* something should look, only *what* - content should not be lost.
If you want look and feel, you specify CSS. One (set of) sheet(s) across browsers will do the job quite nicely.
Or have people forgotten the art of reporting bugs in software and prefer to pander to them instead? If a browser *claims* compliance with a given standard, and you find it lacking in some aspect thereof, report it! Nice and simple:)
I think there's an implicit realisation behind the growing rise of the use of XML, and its other strongly polarized relatives, that it is content that matters and that stylesheets are to be slapped-on afterwards to make it look pretty. Works for XML (with xslt). Works for HTML (with css).
anyway, \end{rant}.
"as far as I'm concerned, Opera has lost a ton of credibility over this issue."
Modifying *content* is outwith a browser's remit. Sure, I suppose it could be an optional filter, but to consider it justifying a whole release, get real! It would've been far more interesting to us "geeky" types if it had been a new release, full-stop, and someone *discovered* this filter like an easter-egg, maybe.
"So what was wrong is MSN's version checking code,"
Web-sites have no business sending different content to different browsers in the first place. There is never any need to change anything you send; just settle for whatever subset of valid content still looks good in the majority of browsers.
Particularly in the case of CSS, it's up to the browser to choose whether to render it or not, and if so, there's lots of scope for how it's done.
If website authors learned this small fact, assigning the bug to the correct party would not be a problem.
"Bad error recovery, many differing standards on restart"
Erm, yeah, it's so non-standard that prozilla doesn't exist - exploiting the `resume' potential of most FTP servers to parallelize downloads starting 0, 25, 50, 75% through the file. Yeah right.
"Designed for human readable command lines not machine readability"
Oh, come *on*. When there's no standard output format at all in HTML, how can an `ls -l' output not be vaguely standard? Are you unaware of the SIZE FTP command?
"Password sent in plain text, not even concealed" And somehow HTTP with its sending of usernames and passwords also in plaintext is "better"?? Does it look flourescent pink on your screen, or something?
"HTTP: none of the above" Poster: no clue what he's on about. HTTP: all of the above. Readers: much annoyance.
HTTP is more easily integrated with SSL in the form of HTTPS. Almost everyone has an ftp client. You have to install curl or wget or lftp yourself consciously in most distributions.
HTTP: no standard for file uploads, you rely on server-side configs and handlers for the purpose. How mad is that??
Konqueror comes with Up as standard - it used to be mapped to Alt-up as well. Galeon has one, if you customize the toolbar in question. I think there's one available for Phoenix in the form of a plugin somewhere, but I really can't remember:)
SpamAssassin *does* have an option to bounce mail, but it's a really really braindead idea. See `-w'. Sending replies to spam only serves to validate your address, or risk the bounce going to an innocent indicted third-party.
What you really want to do is hook it in with your MTA using e.g. exiscan, so that the connection is dropped at SMTP time with a `500 Piss Off' status instead of 200 after the DATA.
I'm doing that for a few select regexps myself atm - it works absolutely wonderfully.
You get an _isql_ with unixODBC, and an _odbctest_ with iODBC (see http://www.iodbc.org/ - there is choice amongst driver-managers, and iODBC even comes with a gtk config app looking relatively similar to Windoze' ODBC Administrator, if you like that sort of thing).
"if you have paid but can't find the documentation, then you can hope that BSA will belive you."
I'd like to suggest here that the onus is on the BSA to *prove* you stole something; at the last count, in the USA as in the UK, people were *supposed* to be "innocent until proven otherwise". Logically, the BSA is the party potentially accusing you otherwise. If a court falls for "there's no docs, see, it must be stolen" as sole evidence then it's a very poor court indeed.
"It just so happens that right now Linux has the major commercial backing."
Both have a more major weakness, anyway: the poor sysadmin looking after the things.
Question to ponder: has there ever been a worm out and about for which there's not yet been a patch? From MS, the linux community, or for *BSD?
"Most web hosting companies use BSD for shared servers. BSD is more secure."
Haha. No, most web-hosting companies would use BSD because someone told them this and they don't know better than to disagree.
And puhlease, let's have none of this "OpenBSD for maximum security" crap. It's one thing to flaunt "not had a remote-root vulnerability in the default install for 3 years", it's quite another thing to leave portmapper listening on a default install! That's just asking for it the next time a portmapper or RPC-related exploit comes out. Compared to that, note that in NetBSD you have to *en*able ssh - good thing, too, if you think the last released version is out of date, you have a chance to patch it before any listeners appear. But note that both of these are affected by the "weakest link" argument above. A tolerable sysadmin will tighten both down at least equally well.
"Linux is friendlier,"
Hahaha(2)! I just finished building sawfish on NetBSD last night, don'tchaknow.
"I really never understood all of the bickering."
Well, quite. For production purposes, use what you [generic] know best. For personal use, go with whatever makes you happy and swing the changes. And keep your reasons to yourself, that way nobody gets roped into a flame-fest.
"I'm not impressed by an ECMA standard. Again, it is more PR by Microsoft to make it look as if they are "open". The ECMA C# standard is limited in scope and political in nature."
Well, it's not a matter of being impressed with it. What would you prefer, a de-facto standard like MSHTML?! Note, for what it's worth, that with ECMA come such words as "javascript" as well.
As for "PR" or not, who cares? The fact is it's now a recognized standard for all to reimplement within the constraints of that standard. So if you like what the language offers, you now have a choice of at least 3 ways to implement it (.NET itself, Mono which mostly works, and Rotor, M$loth's own license-crippled lump of junk designed for FreeBSD but with a linux port).
Yes, it is possible to be cynical about this. You could point out that far from being "bytecode", the *.exe and *.dll files created from C# source are actually genuine Windoze "MZ"-style executables, and that M$loth is pulling a fast one over the DoJ saying "look! the specs for our.exe format are out there AND there's a free reimplmentation!", but... who was it that said "don't assume malice where stupidity will suffice"? Hmmmmmmmm.
No it's not. It's 020-[78]xx-xxxx (maybe another x, I don't care). 020 is the code for London; it means another 7 or 8 numbers can be added in front of the local part.
> Give me a TouchStream [fingerworks.com] anyday. =)
Hey... you got one too? I saw them linked from here before Christmas, and acquired one at the start of January. TouchStream ST(ealth), in Dvorak layout. Landed last week. It's wonderful; frightfully sensitive, but I never even needed a separate mouse since I first installed it. All these gestures for things - yummy. And their Support department know a thing or two about the product, as well. (I had problems setting it up in linux - probably caused to dodgy USB in the Vaio here - and asked for sample config files. They suggested radio interference noise... quick turnaround. Nice.)
I really hope they become a household name, myself.
It says two things: first, that you're worried your systems won't withstand an onslaught, and second, that you're immature enough to resort to vigilanteism when blocking sources could've been good.
Quite what a tool to do this sort of thing for you would accomplish is beyond me. The potential for auto-DoS (read: shooting yourself in the head) is quite high. The likelihood of contributing to the problem (increased traffic over an inadequate link, for example) is all the higher for it.
Read up on iptables -m limit, and see what happens.
I generally agree. I've long-since thought that a lot of the "must get more $subspecies in $profession" noises I hear are arbitrary attempts to impose an artificial norm on the relevant industry. Who cares about imbalance of the sexes in IT, in Customer Services, in Support, in the telco sector, in engineering,..? I've never had a problem with the idea of certain significant masses of the population being "into" different things from me. Thank heavens for that, I'd hate to be a politically correct uniform shade of grey...
You might notice I never asked you to. However, I did delineate that there are costs and responsibilities that you should not be violating. And, more to the point, it's up to *me* to dictate the terms of use. Not you, not your mama, ME.
"If you don't understand what deep linking is then maybe you should shut the fuck up, and ask a question prior to ranting like an ignorant moron."
And if you have no sense of respect for others' property and rights, you should take your hippie ideals and shove them.
What all you hippie leeches forget is that life is a bit different when you have a personal collection of value-added URIs to be publishing, such as a photo gallery, for example.
At the very least, think before you say "deep linking". Do you mean only an href to a URI whose delivered Content-Type is text/html or text/plain? Or do you mean to include img src to URIs whose delivered type is image/* as well?
Allowing the latter willy-nilly still comes under *my* idea of "deep linking", and it brings with it responsibility. Not only might my wishes be different to your ideals, but *I*'ve got the costs of bandwidth to be considering, and *I* reserve the right to move / rename / remove the destinations of the links, thereby making *your* pages look crap to everyone else.
Not to mention, sensible people block images coming from different servers to the referring page in the name of blocking adverts, so that won't work reliably anyway.
Now. What exactly do you all mean by "deep linking" and how do you propose measuring and contributing to content providers' bandwidth costs?
Slashdot Mirror
"there are hundreds of users for whom it's just one more thing to search through in the hunt and peck."
If you don't know the ins and outs of the keyboard you're using, who are you to criticise either the layout or the characters included?
"It would make more sense to have special programmer's keypads,"
Oh yeah, right. Thanks for the discrimination, but no thanks. I expect a keyboard to be able to generate everything in the ASCII charset with minimal fuss, I don't need some marketroid hippie like you to come along and tell me *I*'m the weirdo.
"You come across like it is only happening to you".
Not, well you come across like a gratuitously offensive idiot, but at least I don't feel the need to resort to the lowest of forms of humour to press the point.
"Maybe work on fixing that instead of crying in your beer."
Perhaps if you bothered reading my article you'd like to justify where it appeared to be such.
"One gig is a _drop_ buddy."
Tell you what. Go patronise someone else with your idea of "big" numbers. And don't come back until you have something useful to say, either. Pathetic little flaming troll.
"That assumes the browser can render the content properly based on the CSS."
Actually, it doesn't. A browser is free to discard none, some or more of your hard-worked CSS efforts. It doesn't have to implement anything other than a given standard - and pragmatism says "as well as it can". And an individual browser is totally free to supply alternative CSS altogether without violating what it should be doing, so really you should be concentrating on getting the content in place and not worrying about fancy pretty pictures.
HTML is not ODBC; it is not an adaptive API, you don't get to ask "do I have support for IFRAME?" or "will the browser get my dodgy extensions on top of CSS2 correct?" in the same way as you make SQLGetInfo() calls to ask "what is this database's name for the `date' type?". Or to be more accurate, there are some half-baked attempts to get this data back to the server - either relying on what the browser declares to be its USER_AGENT or rewriting your page in javascript - that are both so fallible that the stress and aggravation to all created by the error-conditions really outweighs the minimal effort required to check what you're forcing on the rest of the world.
"Mozilla... has bugs and quirks"
Yes, I'm sure it does. I use the gecko engine out of preference for the way it makes things look, but have found at least twice that actually getting down and settling on a specific DOCTYPE tag and checking and fixing validity of both *HTML version and CSS, it actually behaves exactly as you tell it to - enforcing XHTML-1.0 Strict is just a set of criteria to write by and it tells whatever browser what you've written. It's been the case that moving from some "looks OK" mixture of almost-X-html plus "should probably work if I remembered half the words right" CSS to iron out the bugs, and bingo, the page looks spot-on what I had in mind.
Really, it makes me wonder what people are trying to cover up - are there really people who provide webpages using CSS but who don't know what `float: left' or `clear: right' do??
"well sorry, it takes some people days to notice that their server isn't even on the network anymore."
In some ways, I think it's quite reassuring that there are people out there with NON-immediate demands. I'm used to processing stuff quite often in an interrupt-driven manner, as it's the only way that seems to work. Being able to tell a car-electrician garage that they could take their time over diagnosing and fixing things rates amongst the finer things in life, to me.
However, I'm firmly of the opinion that it doesn't apply to any box put on the 'Net. If you can't have someone respond to abuse, postmaster or hostmaster as the case may be, in a more timely fashion - maybe about 12hrs or so - then you shouldn't be putting it online. If you're (generic) going to ignore security updates - most people seem to be putting them around in a responsible fashion, these days - then kindly don't inflict your laziness on the other inhabitants of the 'Net, because that *is* your responsibility, however much one might want to dodge it.
Yes, well, that's all very well in your own world. Unfortunately, there are those of us out here who measured 873Kb/s of 1434/UDP going past the back end of eth0 from 3 separate IP#s in the same rack and watched the local router have problems coping - either with that, and/or external scans, or with traffic from other /24 networks, or with filtering all the above, causing major loss of connectivity at several times for the next 12hrs or more.
;)
My rsync server pushed 1.0Gb compared to the usual 1.7Gb at that time, that day.
So don't forgive us for thinking it worthy of further discussion.
Now, you were saying?
"Suppose (as is actually the case), browser bugs cause your single page to look rubbish in all browsers."
:)
Don't use that feature of whatever standard it was, then. It's just not possible in practice. Especially given that your question included "all browsers" - there really is NO distinction to be made on a per-browser basis then, is there?!
And file a lot of bug-reports, as well.
"It is EXTREMELY important for some businesses to have the save look and feel on as many browsers as possible."
:)
Given that I can, and occasionally do, override what websites dictate, why do companies go a ton(ne) on attempting to dictate more? It is the job of the browser to render content how the user wishes, and the job of the site to dish up content. After all, are you going to cater for all combinations of colour-blindness or even blindness altogether? On all platforms?
Is it something to do with appearance over content? If so, rest assured I won't be staying on that site for very long. I actively reject companies based on their website policies: notably a car-insurance company had such messed-up javascript that I couldn't follow a link and went elsewhere, without even getting a quote; another company arbitrarily closes down its online insurance-quoting system outside "office hours", so those of us returning home on a Saturday tea-time looking to do a little browsing are forced elsewhere (that lost them about GBP800); and at least one major UK-based building-society has arbitrarily rejected galeon and konqueror for no good reason when their standards-compliance was *better* than NS4, even in those early days!
The definition of a valid browser says nothing about *how* something should look, only *what* - content should not be lost.
If you want look and feel, you specify CSS. One (set of) sheet(s) across browsers will do the job quite nicely.
Or have people forgotten the art of reporting bugs in software and prefer to pander to them instead? If a browser *claims* compliance with a given standard, and you find it lacking in some aspect thereof, report it! Nice and simple
I think there's an implicit realisation behind the growing rise of the use of XML, and its other strongly polarized relatives, that it is content that matters and that stylesheets are to be slapped-on afterwards to make it look pretty. Works for XML (with xslt). Works for HTML (with css).
anyway, \end{rant}.
"as far as I'm concerned, Opera has lost a ton of credibility over this issue."
Modifying *content* is outwith a browser's remit. Sure, I suppose it could be an optional filter, but to consider it justifying a whole release, get real! It would've been far more interesting to us "geeky" types if it had been a new release, full-stop, and someone *discovered* this filter like an easter-egg, maybe.
"So what was wrong is MSN's version checking code,"
Web-sites have no business sending different content to different browsers in the first place. There is never any need to change anything you send; just settle for whatever subset of valid content still looks good in the majority of browsers.
Particularly in the case of CSS, it's up to the browser to choose whether to render it or not, and if so, there's lots of scope for how it's done.
If website authors learned this small fact, assigning the bug to the correct party would not be a problem.
"No standard directory listing"
Neither has HTTP.
"Bad error recovery, many differing standards on restart"
Erm, yeah, it's so non-standard that prozilla doesn't exist - exploiting the `resume' potential of most FTP servers to parallelize downloads starting 0, 25, 50, 75% through the file. Yeah right.
"Designed for human readable command lines not machine readability"
Oh, come *on*. When there's no standard output format at all in HTML, how can an `ls -l' output not be vaguely standard? Are you unaware of the SIZE FTP command?
"Password sent in plain text, not even concealed"
And somehow HTTP with its sending of usernames and passwords also in plaintext is "better"?? Does it look flourescent pink on your screen, or something?
"HTTP: none of the above"
Poster: no clue what he's on about. HTTP: all of the above. Readers: much annoyance.
HTTP is more easily integrated with SSL in the form of HTTPS.
Almost everyone has an ftp client. You have to install curl or wget or lftp yourself consciously in most distributions.
HTTP: no standard for file uploads, you rely on server-side configs and handlers for the purpose. How mad is that??
Konqueror comes with Up as standard - it used to be mapped to Alt-up as well. Galeon has one, if you customize the toolbar in question. :)
I think there's one available for Phoenix in the form of a plugin somewhere, but I really can't remember
SpamAssassin *does* have an option to bounce mail, but it's a really really braindead idea. See `-w'.
Sending replies to spam only serves to validate your address, or risk the bounce going to an innocent indicted third-party.
What you really want to do is hook it in with your MTA using e.g. exiscan, so that the connection is dropped at SMTP time with a `500 Piss Off' status instead of 200 after the DATA.
I'm doing that for a few select regexps myself atm - it works absolutely wonderfully.
"it seems highly doubtful that Microsoft could legally get the Mono project or other third party ECMA C# or .NET for infringing it."
Doesn't Mono's existence constitute prior art, anyway?
And what about having opened the specs up in the form of an ECMA standard, doesn't that make it a bit harder?
You get an _isql_ with unixODBC, and an _odbctest_ with iODBC (see http://www.iodbc.org/ - there is choice amongst driver-managers, and iODBC even comes with a gtk config app looking relatively similar to Windoze' ODBC Administrator, if you like that sort of thing).
"if you have paid but can't find the documentation, then you can hope that BSA will belive you."
I'd like to suggest here that the onus is on the BSA to *prove* you stole something; at the last count, in the USA as in the UK, people were *supposed* to be "innocent until proven otherwise".
Logically, the BSA is the party potentially accusing you otherwise.
If a court falls for "there's no docs, see, it must be stolen" as sole evidence then it's a very poor court indeed.
"Why not have the anti-spam filter reply to the message sender with a message .... Could this work?"
No, for obvious reasons. I'm not interesting in getting backscatter from broken "anti"-spam systems.
Not to mention, the redistribution of workload (innocents do all the work, the spammers merely absorb another bounce) is indefensible, IMNSHO.
" a really good SVG editing tool."
Have you tried sodipodi?
"It just so happens that right now Linux has the major commercial backing."
Both have a more major weakness, anyway: the poor sysadmin looking after the things.
Question to ponder: has there ever been a worm out and about for which there's not yet been a patch? From MS, the linux community, or for *BSD?
"Most web hosting companies use BSD for shared servers. BSD is more secure."
Haha. No, most web-hosting companies would use BSD because someone told them this and they don't know better than to disagree.
And puhlease, let's have none of this "OpenBSD for maximum security" crap. It's one thing to flaunt "not had a remote-root vulnerability in the default install for 3 years", it's quite another thing to leave portmapper listening on a default install! That's just asking for it the next time a portmapper or RPC-related exploit comes out.
Compared to that, note that in NetBSD you have to *en*able ssh - good thing, too, if you think the last released version is out of date, you have a chance to patch it before any listeners appear.
But note that both of these are affected by the "weakest link" argument above. A tolerable sysadmin will tighten both down at least equally well.
"Linux is friendlier,"
Hahaha(2)! I just finished building sawfish on NetBSD last night, don'tchaknow.
"I really never understood all of the bickering."
Well, quite. For production purposes, use what you [generic] know best. For personal use, go with whatever makes you happy and swing the changes. And keep your reasons to yourself, that way nobody gets roped into a flame-fest.
Plod on, universe.
"I'm not impressed by an ECMA standard. Again, it is more PR by Microsoft to make it look as if they are "open". The ECMA C# standard is limited in scope and political in nature."
.exe format are out there AND there's a free reimplmentation!", but... who was it that said "don't assume malice where stupidity will suffice"?
Well, it's not a matter of being impressed with it. What would you prefer, a de-facto standard like MSHTML?!
Note, for what it's worth, that with ECMA come such words as "javascript" as well.
As for "PR" or not, who cares? The fact is it's now a recognized standard for all to reimplement within the constraints of that standard. So if you like what the language offers, you now have a choice of at least 3 ways to implement it (.NET itself, Mono which mostly works, and Rotor, M$loth's own license-crippled lump of junk designed for FreeBSD but with a linux port).
Yes, it is possible to be cynical about this. You could point out that far from being "bytecode", the *.exe and *.dll files created from C# source are actually genuine Windoze "MZ"-style executables, and that M$loth is pulling a fast one over the DoJ saying "look! the specs for our
Hmmmmmmmm.
You're missing out on the single fact that Microshaft have actually submitted a whole standard to the ECMA - the C# specs.
;8)
Sure there's nothing new, though. There's been nothing new since the 1960s with lisp, but that's a different rant.
> It's now 0207-xxx-xxxx and 0208-xxx-xxxx
No it's not. It's 020-[78]xx-xxxx (maybe another x, I don't care). 020 is the code for London; it means another 7 or 8 numbers can be added in front of the local part.
> Give me a TouchStream [fingerworks.com] anyday. =)
Hey... you got one too? I saw them linked from here before Christmas, and acquired one at the start of January. TouchStream ST(ealth), in Dvorak layout. Landed last week.
It's wonderful; frightfully sensitive, but I never even needed a separate mouse since I first installed it. All these gestures for things - yummy.
And their Support department know a thing or two about the product, as well. (I had problems setting it up in linux - probably caused to dodgy USB in the Vaio here - and asked for sample config files. They suggested radio interference noise... quick turnaround. Nice.)
I really hope they become a household name, myself.
Agreed.
It says two things: first, that you're worried your systems won't withstand an onslaught, and second, that you're immature enough to resort to vigilanteism when blocking sources could've been good.
Quite what a tool to do this sort of thing for you would accomplish is beyond me. The potential for auto-DoS (read: shooting yourself in the head) is quite high. The likelihood of contributing to the problem (increased traffic over an inadequate link, for example) is all the higher for it.
Read up on iptables -m limit, and see what happens.
I generally agree. I've long-since thought that a lot of the "must get more $subspecies in $profession" noises I hear are arbitrary attempts to impose an artificial norm on the relevant industry. Who cares about imbalance of the sexes in IT, in Customer Services, in Support, in the telco sector, in engineering, ..? I've never had a problem with the idea of certain significant masses of the population being "into" different things from me. Thank heavens for that, I'd hate to be a politically correct uniform shade of grey...
> I'm not going to protect it for you.
You might notice I never asked you to. However, I did delineate that there are costs and responsibilities that you should not be violating. And, more to the point, it's up to *me* to dictate the terms of use. Not you, not your mama, ME.
"If you don't understand what deep linking is then maybe you should shut the fuck up, and ask a question prior to ranting like an ignorant moron."
And if you have no sense of respect for others' property and rights, you should take your hippie ideals and shove them.
What all you hippie leeches forget is that life is a bit different when you have a personal collection of value-added URIs to be publishing, such as a photo gallery, for example.
At the very least, think before you say "deep linking". Do you mean only an href to a URI whose delivered Content-Type is text/html or text/plain?
Or do you mean to include img src to URIs whose delivered type is image/* as well?
Allowing the latter willy-nilly still comes under *my* idea of "deep linking", and it brings with it responsibility. Not only might my wishes be different to your ideals, but *I*'ve got the costs of bandwidth to be considering, and *I* reserve the right to move / rename / remove the destinations of the links, thereby making *your* pages look crap to everyone else.
Not to mention, sensible people block images coming from different servers to the referring page in the name of blocking adverts, so that won't work reliably anyway.
Now. What exactly do you all mean by "deep linking" and how do you propose measuring and contributing to content providers' bandwidth costs?