I never have seen the point in removing a GUI config manipulation option once someone took the time to add it. If you get too many options over time then organize them and create more windows/tabs. Don't take features away; add them. But I digress.
I don't know about everyone else but I am generally dis-satisfied with v2.0. Frankly I felt that the memory leak in FF was significantly amplified in 2.0. I noticed back on 1.5 that every time I put my laptop into standby with FF running and then woke it up that FF would slowly increase it's memory consumption to about 30% more than what it was before being put into standby. Ie, if it was 100MB when it went to standby it would be around 130MB after waking the laptop, switching focus to FF, and clicking through my opened tabs. In FF 2.0 I have to literally shutdown FF every day or two or FF will easily consume upwards of 500MB of my RAM. I usually have about a dozen windows open and in each window I have 5-15 tabs. That's a fair bit but it didn't cause me much grief in v1.5.
It also took me a while to figure out how to remove the close button from each tab. The tab scrolling "feature" was also a point of great annoyance that took up more of my time to find a fix.
In short I'm just not jumping for joy over FF. This new flaw happens to come to light the day after I search Google for a way to manually add userids and passwords to the FF DB (any ideas?). This was to address the problem of FF not picking up some text fields as userid and password fields. One solution I found was RoboForm, though I'm not sure I want to pay for what I think should be a fairly easy thing to do inside FF. FF is getting better but personally I'd rather be using Mozilla 1.7.x.
Routing around holes in a network... Sounds like the basic functionality of routing protocol to me. So they're getting paid big bucks to re-invent IGPs like IS-IS, OSPF, RIP (though this POS creates more holes than it routes around), IGRP, EIGRP or an EGP like BGP? Hell when it comes right down to it good ole IEEE 802.1D is a layer-2 routing protocol (when you think about how it actually works and not the generic description you read about in references). Hello, wheel.
Especially because the penalties include 1) loss of all Federal funding, 2) fines, and 3) jail time. I spent many years working for state institutions. I guarantee that they'll take a FERPA threat seriously.
You forgot that North Korea also has the "World'sBestGolfer". Stand aside Tiger; Kim Jong is here. Palmer? You suck next to Kim Jong. Yellow jacket? We don't need no yellow jacket. We've got red nuclear missiles, or at least missile shells with nuclear logos painted on them.
Where the hell is the EFF in all of this? What are my dues paying for if not to take on easy but important cases like this one? These people need some compotent lawyers on their side or this is going to end up in a bad way.
One of our clients makes POS systems for McD's too. In fact the company was a startup from McD's dollars. They've been bought by a Fortune 500 though and I'm not longer assigned to that client. I'm not sure who owns what and what does what anymore.
They should know from the rolls exactly how many people voted. It should match exactly with the number of votes tallied from the electronic voting system. If it does then his vote was actually given to another candidate. This would be even worse than simply dropping his vote for an unknown/unregistered write-in candidate.
One of our local McDonald's drive-through mic/display kiosks had a blue screen on it the other day. The girl at the window said it's been like that for months. They can't fix it and apparently neither can IT.
I can't believe they're canceling that show. I love that show! Amanda Tapping has got it going on. Claudia Black is fine too. Vanessa Angel is a fox. Now I'm bummed out.
It never hurts to err on the side of paranoia.:-) Did you hear that...?
It seems like I read about a DHCP exploit for D-Link routers some time ago. I'd contact a variety of groups, explain the situation and ask if they'd like to see the packet capture or possibily even the router (if you don't mind loaning it out). The contribution could be useful if it was a one-off exploit that hasn't been seen by many eyes yet.
Us Dems still won't pull out that early. That would cause even more problems. What they will do though is put together a plan to 1) get the Iraq government in charge of more of its own resources quicke so that 2) they can then define a timeline to say that we'll be out by Spring/Summer 08. We're not crazy enough to pull up stakes immediately. We're going to help the Iraqis help themselves. At that point if we've done all we can and pull out according to the timeline that their provisional government agreed to, and the government still fails, then we have less blame to shoulder. I also think with the recent changes that we'll find our foreign allies much more willing to work with us on maintaining a stable Iraq. I think the UN will be willing to help out at that point. Bush and Friends have never had a plan for getting Iraq on its own 2 feet. With a tangible plan in hand I think we'll find the world as a whole much more willing to be a part of it.
There are a couple reasons why the GOP is doing this now.
1) The Dems in the majority would have raised hell until he was removed, essentially forcing his removal in a very public way. In this way the GOP can save face.
2) By doing this themselves the GOP can say in 2 years once Iraq has gotten better (by replacing a big contributor to the problem) that it was their action (the GOP action) that made Iraq get better and not the Dems. They're action to replace Rumsfeld is what made the Iraq situation better. The change puts the GOP in the position to pull the blow the wind out of the Dems' sails in 2 years.
Either way in 2 years the GOP is still in a good position from a PR perspective. They can now lay claim to any good the Dems do in Iraq. Crafty bastards.
You should really spend some time playing with VMWare. It's slick. On these forums about 6 months ago the discussion came up and some VMWare developers chimed in. They've never had the host OS compromised through a guest VM. That's how they can justify saying that you can put one nic in a DMZ and another behind the FW. That's slick. Then you just assign the VM to use whichever nic you want them on.
I'm not a WSUS expert by any means. I certainly hope that the packages are signed somehow. Google might have the answers but I don't have the time to look at the moment. It could be a feature that they reserved for SMS, but I'd hope not.
That's not so bad though. I would feel much better about opening up outbound holes for one machine than my entire server farm. You could place the WSUS box in a DMZ and limit access to/from it even from the inside. One interesting approach I read about involved using VMWare and a SAN. They had one of the VMWare server's nics in a DMZ. The first WSUS virtual was in that DMZ. It downloaded all the updates and wrote them to disk. Then a second virtual WSUS server was bound to an internal nic. It pulled the data from the SAN and distributed it to the internal devices. Even if the external WSUS was compromised they would have to know exactly how the whole WSUS environment was layed out to be know how to gain compromise any internal servers. Even then as long as those internal servers don't have access to the outside world he's still screwed.
There are a lot of games you can play with this. Just make sure you take the time to thoroughly test whatever solution you go with. Some are easier to manage than other. As always, it's a trade off.
That or Uncle Sam would drive the costs for the ADA Compliancy items down to the point where they could be affordable. Uncle Sam used to sponsor research back in the day, the output of which was made available to the general public at far less cost than what it would have been had the market reached that point on its own. Why couldn't that be done here? Sponsor the development and standardization of an open web standard that provides for full ADA compliancy, then license that at a cheap price to companies that in turn make the products that make this happen. Wouldn't that be easier than simply giving out tax breaks? Rather than let each business re-invent the wheel, design your own custom wheel that will get the job done, and let business use that.
Agreed. Society addressed the problem, though it took too long to do so. That change didn't have a negative financial impact on the businesses though (I'm sure some bigots stopped going to those stores after the change but fortunately they have been steadily decreasing in numbers over the years, or I'd like to think they are). This topic is different though. They aren't saying that disabled persons can't come in or that they won't provide them with their wares or services. They're saying that we aren't going to treat you any different than we do anyone else. We aren't going to make special provisions for you. That's different than your example. Back to your example though, the "market" didn't really decide that. The market would have loved to have had the extra profit. The market was at odds with certain sectors of society. It took the other sectors of society to stand up and say enough is enough.
I can certainly see the problems. I don't know what an effective solution would be though. I think a tax break would help offset the costs.
Something occurs to me though. How does a business build their storefront or design their website in such a way to be available to all disabilities? Visual impairment is one thing, but what about people with hearing impairments? Say the fire alarm went off and a hearing impaired person was in a bathroom stall. Is there a flashing light to warn them of danger? What about people with epilepsy; will the flashing lights prompt a seisure (maybe a really bad one that is fatal or even more impairing on the person)? What about height-challenged people? Does a store have to be accessible to a person that's 3' tall? There are so many different impairments out there, how does one know how far they have to go to be prepared for that individual?
It would be a huge expense. Hell it would create a whole new niche industry (just like all fads and regulations create when they first come out (think Y2K)). Now if there was some sort of tax break for tackling the ADA compliancy tasks like putting in a ramp, widening bathroom stalls, or bringing your website into ADA compliancy then that would be different. Interesting ideas.
I see your point on the retrofit vs building from anew. Still I don't think I could justify forcing every website that sells something to be ADA compliant (or some other standard). I run an ISP in rural America. I can think of literally hundreds of Ma & Pa businesses that sell something crafty that has a small website for displaying pictures of their wares. What possible justification could I provide them as to why they're required to make their website ADA compliant. They use whatever generic website building program came with their PC, or Netscape, or Microsoft Publisher, or some other similarly inate WYSIWYG design app. I don't think they could justify buying Dreamweaver, let along hiring a pro to revamp the website. I feel for those with disabilities but what about those people with teeny tiny businesses that happen to have a website? ADA compliancy could easily outweigh any dollars that site could generate.
Slashdot Mirror
De nada. Glad I could help. :-)
I never have seen the point in removing a GUI config manipulation option once someone took the time to add it. If you get too many options over time then organize them and create more windows/tabs. Don't take features away; add them. But I digress.
It also took me a while to figure out how to remove the close button from each tab. The tab scrolling "feature" was also a point of great annoyance that took up more of my time to find a fix.
In short I'm just not jumping for joy over FF. This new flaw happens to come to light the day after I search Google for a way to manually add userids and passwords to the FF DB (any ideas?). This was to address the problem of FF not picking up some text fields as userid and password fields. One solution I found was RoboForm, though I'm not sure I want to pay for what I think should be a fairly easy thing to do inside FF. FF is getting better but personally I'd rather be using Mozilla 1.7.x.
Routing around holes in a network... Sounds like the basic functionality of routing protocol to me. So they're getting paid big bucks to re-invent IGPs like IS-IS, OSPF, RIP (though this POS creates more holes than it routes around), IGRP, EIGRP or an EGP like BGP? Hell when it comes right down to it good ole IEEE 802.1D is a layer-2 routing protocol (when you think about how it actually works and not the generic description you read about in references). Hello, wheel.
Especially because the penalties include 1) loss of all Federal funding, 2) fines, and 3) jail time. I spent many years working for state institutions. I guarantee that they'll take a FERPA threat seriously.
You forgot that North Korea also has the "World's Best Golfer". Stand aside Tiger; Kim Jong is here. Palmer? You suck next to Kim Jong. Yellow jacket? We don't need no yellow jacket. We've got red nuclear missiles, or at least missile shells with nuclear logos painted on them.
Those damn deer won't stand a chance now.
Where the hell is the EFF in all of this? What are my dues paying for if not to take on easy but important cases like this one? These people need some compotent lawyers on their side or this is going to end up in a bad way.
Sweet! I hadn't heard about Stargate Worlds either. I hope that game lives up to the show. It would be a shame if it would suck.
One of our clients makes POS systems for McD's too. In fact the company was a startup from McD's dollars. They've been bought by a Fortune 500 though and I'm not longer assigned to that client. I'm not sure who owns what and what does what anymore.
They should know from the rolls exactly how many people voted. It should match exactly with the number of votes tallied from the electronic voting system. If it does then his vote was actually given to another candidate. This would be even worse than simply dropping his vote for an unknown/unregistered write-in candidate.
One of our local McDonald's drive-through mic/display kiosks had a blue screen on it the other day. The girl at the window said it's been like that for months. They can't fix it and apparently neither can IT.
What are these DVDs you speak of? Any links? I hadn't heard about them.
I can't believe they're canceling that show. I love that show! Amanda Tapping has got it going on. Claudia Black is fine too. Vanessa Angel is a fox. Now I'm bummed out.
It seems like I read about a DHCP exploit for D-Link routers some time ago. I'd contact a variety of groups, explain the situation and ask if they'd like to see the packet capture or possibily even the router (if you don't mind loaning it out). The contribution could be useful if it was a one-off exploit that hasn't been seen by many eyes yet.
Have you talked to CERT about this? I'm sure they'd be interested. What about D-Link itself?
Us Dems still won't pull out that early. That would cause even more problems. What they will do though is put together a plan to 1) get the Iraq government in charge of more of its own resources quicke so that 2) they can then define a timeline to say that we'll be out by Spring/Summer 08. We're not crazy enough to pull up stakes immediately. We're going to help the Iraqis help themselves. At that point if we've done all we can and pull out according to the timeline that their provisional government agreed to, and the government still fails, then we have less blame to shoulder. I also think with the recent changes that we'll find our foreign allies much more willing to work with us on maintaining a stable Iraq. I think the UN will be willing to help out at that point. Bush and Friends have never had a plan for getting Iraq on its own 2 feet. With a tangible plan in hand I think we'll find the world as a whole much more willing to be a part of it.
1) The Dems in the majority would have raised hell until he was removed, essentially forcing his removal in a very public way. In this way the GOP can save face.
2) By doing this themselves the GOP can say in 2 years once Iraq has gotten better (by replacing a big contributor to the problem) that it was their action (the GOP action) that made Iraq get better and not the Dems. They're action to replace Rumsfeld is what made the Iraq situation better. The change puts the GOP in the position to pull the blow the wind out of the Dems' sails in 2 years.
Either way in 2 years the GOP is still in a good position from a PR perspective. They can now lay claim to any good the Dems do in Iraq. Crafty bastards.
I'm not a WSUS expert by any means. I certainly hope that the packages are signed somehow. Google might have the answers but I don't have the time to look at the moment. It could be a feature that they reserved for SMS, but I'd hope not.
There are a lot of games you can play with this. Just make sure you take the time to thoroughly test whatever solution you go with. Some are easier to manage than other. As always, it's a trade off.
That or Uncle Sam would drive the costs for the ADA Compliancy items down to the point where they could be affordable. Uncle Sam used to sponsor research back in the day, the output of which was made available to the general public at far less cost than what it would have been had the market reached that point on its own. Why couldn't that be done here? Sponsor the development and standardization of an open web standard that provides for full ADA compliancy, then license that at a cheap price to companies that in turn make the products that make this happen. Wouldn't that be easier than simply giving out tax breaks? Rather than let each business re-invent the wheel, design your own custom wheel that will get the job done, and let business use that.
Agreed. Society addressed the problem, though it took too long to do so. That change didn't have a negative financial impact on the businesses though (I'm sure some bigots stopped going to those stores after the change but fortunately they have been steadily decreasing in numbers over the years, or I'd like to think they are). This topic is different though. They aren't saying that disabled persons can't come in or that they won't provide them with their wares or services. They're saying that we aren't going to treat you any different than we do anyone else. We aren't going to make special provisions for you. That's different than your example. Back to your example though, the "market" didn't really decide that. The market would have loved to have had the extra profit. The market was at odds with certain sectors of society. It took the other sectors of society to stand up and say enough is enough.
Something occurs to me though. How does a business build their storefront or design their website in such a way to be available to all disabilities? Visual impairment is one thing, but what about people with hearing impairments? Say the fire alarm went off and a hearing impaired person was in a bathroom stall. Is there a flashing light to warn them of danger? What about people with epilepsy; will the flashing lights prompt a seisure (maybe a really bad one that is fatal or even more impairing on the person)? What about height-challenged people? Does a store have to be accessible to a person that's 3' tall? There are so many different impairments out there, how does one know how far they have to go to be prepared for that individual?
It would be a huge expense. Hell it would create a whole new niche industry (just like all fads and regulations create when they first come out (think Y2K)). Now if there was some sort of tax break for tackling the ADA compliancy tasks like putting in a ramp, widening bathroom stalls, or bringing your website into ADA compliancy then that would be different. Interesting ideas.
I see your point on the retrofit vs building from anew. Still I don't think I could justify forcing every website that sells something to be ADA compliant (or some other standard). I run an ISP in rural America. I can think of literally hundreds of Ma & Pa businesses that sell something crafty that has a small website for displaying pictures of their wares. What possible justification could I provide them as to why they're required to make their website ADA compliant. They use whatever generic website building program came with their PC, or Netscape, or Microsoft Publisher, or some other similarly inate WYSIWYG design app. I don't think they could justify buying Dreamweaver, let along hiring a pro to revamp the website. I feel for those with disabilities but what about those people with teeny tiny businesses that happen to have a website? ADA compliancy could easily outweigh any dollars that site could generate.