I don't think "let's write something to put on our web site, and get one of the graphics guys to make a pretty logo with an American flag or something, so everyone on Slashdot will see how much we care" was the first thing that came to their mind. I think they were busy watching CNN. I know I was. When I did go to Apple's Web site, I was very impressed that they had replaced their entire front page.
So the new hardware isn't going to get a pretty parade in Paris?
It wasn't going to. The only new hardware is a revised PowerBook G4, anyway. The real big thing is Mac OS 10.1, which will still be released on schedule.
Another task I plan on doing often is execute elaborite Finite element models using Matlab. To do this, it would be cool to be able to remotely log into a faster computer to execute code. That "PCAnywhere" feature of XP that you mentioned gives me the impression that I may be able to do that with XP.
Linux has always been able to do this easily. The X window system was designed with exactly this in mind. If you're not running X on the other end, you can set up VNC (fully cross-platform, btw).
It's not like this guy was some innocent arab minding his own business before this happened.
That's fine, but please read the other part of my post. If we assume Bin Laden is responsible for Tuesday's events, we'll just go in and grab Bin Laden, and forget about the others who were involved. This turns Bin Laden into another martyr who died for his cause, and gives his supporters reason to attack us again. If we're going to take action, we need to find out who was responsible, who their friends and supporters were, and grab everybody. Since they seem to welcome death, I'd like to see them sentenced to life in solitary confinement or something, but I'm sure if we do take them alive, they'll probably just be executed.
Don't do this! Just write to the standard DTD and ignore everything else. Providing "optimized" content just makes the compatibility wars rage on, and if you optimize for IE, you're helping MS subvert the documented standards.
The answer to this is obvious: if I write pure standards-compliant HTML, it will render as a horrendous mess in some browsers, and that reflects very poorly on me as a web designer, when most other sites render just fine. Standards are great for browsers that support them, but limiting myself to the W3C standards is just as bad as limiting myself to only supporting the browsers I happen to like.
I suppose if all the browsers you happen to like all fully support W3C standards, you wouldn't understand how this could be a problem.
How about not optimizing your page code instead? Just write HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 or CSS1/CSS2 or Javascript 1.2 or whatever according to the standards ( see www.w3c.org for all of them ) and make life easy on all of us.
Because then it doesn't render correctly in many browsers. I try to check my code at http://validator.w3.org/ periodically, but the reality of Web design is that the official standards only work on some browsers, and to ignore that fact and not compensate for it means some people may not be able to see the site, or it might look like crap, which reflects badly on the designer.
I find it annoying to go to a site and see "Sorry, Netscape 6.x isn't supported.", flip the user-agent string to IE5.5 and discover that the site renders perfectly in Mozilla 0.9.recent. To me it says that the site doesn't care what customers it annoys and that the designer doesn't know how to create HTML pages.
I have never done this. I do occasionally say "sorry, you must have a frames-compatible browser", and of course Netscape 1.x won't work on any site using name-based virtual hosts, but I'll never turn down a browser I don't recognize, and especially not something as common as Mozilla. "Netscape 6 isn't supported" is acceptible ONLY if the message only remains for a few days while the web designer figures out how to work around some quirk, but any web designer who hasn't already done so should be fired, or given a raise and more time to complete that sort of thing. Don't forget the role PHBs play in this.
Screw that! HTML should be standard and browser independent!
That's a nice dream. Unfortunately whenever you write code that's browser-independent, it doesn't work in some browsers.
Of course, you can write simple text-based stuff with minimum formatting, but there's a lot more I want to be able to do. Have you seen Slashdot's HTML recently?
Re:User-Agent: that tricks servers but not designe
on
Mozilla 0.9.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Right, which means we have to keep checking the access_log to figure out what interesting tricks people are using these days.
My code is horrendous, because I try to do interesting things that HTML wasn't designed to do. Each browser has its own peculiar bugs, and I've tried to work around all of them. I mostly use browser detection to determine whether or not your browser will likely support something, and if not, offer an alternative that will definitely work - for example, if you're browsing in Lynx, everything will be fine, but if you set Lynx to pretend it's MSIE, it may not work so well.
Browse around http://phroggy.com/ for awhile. Yes, some of the code is crap. I've tried to test it in Netscape 2-3-4-6, MSIE 3-4-5-6, Mozilla, iCab, OmniWeb, Konqueror, Lynx, Links, and I've just installed Opera so I can try that. Of course I test on Linux and Mac OS and Windows, and have had people send me screen shots from other OSes that I don't have available.
Also make Mozilla reply as "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)".
Please don't do this. It just makes life harder on web designers. How can we optimize our HTML code to render correctly in your browser, if you lie to us about what browser you're using?
Of course, there may be a few cases where it's necessary to do this temporarily, on a per-site basis, but please don't do this long-term.
Talk about overreacting. They talk of workin within the law that's what seperates us from terrorists. Now they are bending it to catch them and prying more rights from us.
I agree. This needs to stop.
Save time and just go in Afganistan and grab the SOB it would be easier.
PLEASE STOP ADVOCATING THIS. We don't know for sure that Bin Laden is responsible, and if he's involved it looks like he wasn't working alone. Going into Afghanistan and killing Bin Laden will not solve anything, and there will be a huge temptation to stop there. We risk turning him into a martyr for his cause, and prompting his supporters to attack again. We need to find out everyone who was behind Tuesday's attacks, and get them all - preferably alive, so they can be interrogated.
The changes you're talking about that would actually reduce server load have nothing to do with mod_gzip - for example, caching comment additions every 30 seconds, and serving them as static pages with a 30-second delay, instead of as dynamic pages.
Slashdot had the bandwidth to handle the traffic. It was the load on the servers - all the Apache threads, etc. - that killed them. mod_gzip would NOT have made this better.
I have to point out that Mac OS X, and NeXTStep before it, was designed to do exactly what you're asking. Mac OS X is very immature right now, but give it a little time for some of these features to be fleshed out again.
Please understand that I personally have no problem with not allowing knives on planes - I was just pointing out why they have been allowed until now: inconvenience.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Thank you. Very insightful.
Airport security MUST improve. Experts have been saying that for YEARS now, and it hasn't happened. However, security can be improved without imposing additional restrictions or inconveniences. We already have restrictions and inconveniences that we are perfectly willing to live with, but the way the security measures are implemented needs to be addressed. I'm OK with x-rays, metal detectors, random searches, etc. etc., but studies have consistently shown that people can still get weapons past security checkpoints. That needs to stop, and adding additional restrictions isn't the way to fix it. The solution is for security people to do their jobs correctly.
I get the impression that the average airport security officer gets about as much training as the average tech support rep, and they have about the same turnover rate. That's a problem.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
I pray that your theory is never put to the test, that you are never on a plane trying to explain to hijackers that your country has been nicer to other countries lately while they scream at you about Allah and the religious laws that say that you, as a non-believer, must die.
I think it's very important to keep in mind that Islamic beliefs DO NOT say anything of the sort, and Muslims everywhere have been repeatedly saying that neither they nor their faith condones these actions, despite the threatening phone calls and harassment they have been enduring over the last few days.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
That, and can someone please tell me who thought that having knife blades under four inches was allowable? Yeesh.... how deep is your neck anyhow?
A lot of normal, productive, innocent, patriotic American citizens carry pocket knives with them at all times, and would be inconvenienced if they were not allowed to take them past security checkpoints (remember that at least before now, it's not just passengers that pass security, but their friends and family too - people picking them up or dropping them off).
The four inch thing really has nothing to do with the length of the blade, but rather it's an attempt to easily distinguish between pocket knives, which innocent people want to take past security, and butcher knives, which we clearly do not want on airplanes.
It's high time to call for an end to all religion. Atheists value human life most highly, no matter what christian/muslims/jews/ whatever say.
Don't forget that the belief that God doesn't exist is a belief held solely on faith, since it cannot be proven.
As an atheist, I believe that we've only got one shot at life, that placing our trust in any "power higher than ourselves" is idiotic. We make our own destiny.
As a Christian, I also believe that we've only got one shot at life on this Earth, whatever may lie ahead. Placing your trust in a higher power is idiotic for anyone who doesn't believe in the existance of a higher power, but for those of us who believe God is very real and has the ability to protect us, it's not such a bad idea.
We make our own destiny? Tell that to the people who were working in the WTC towers yesterday morning, or to the passengers and crew on the four hijacked planes.
DOWN WITH RELIGON! I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR IMAGINARY FRIENDS, ALLAH or JEHOVAH, NEITHER EXIST.
And I don't care that you don't believe in them. That is your right in this country, protected by the First Ammendment to the United States Constitution, and I fully support your right to believe what you want.
The terrorist's actions are all the worse, becuase they're fighting for an incredibly stupid cause - they misguidedly beleive (like many americans) in some "higher power".
We're not even sure who the terrorists are, let alone what their motivations were. Please don't jump to conclusions prematurely.
I've seen AOL screen names for sale on Ebay. It wouldn't surprise me to start seeing three-character AIM screen names; someone stole all of them with an exploit (that AOL still hasn't patched, after about a year and a half from what I understand) and the script kiddies have been trading them as commodities. If you have a three-character AIM screen name, you should be able to use it to sign up for AOL as well, and I'm sure there must be a demand for names like "ibm" and "foo" (among those who actually use AOL).
The TiXray.orig file is in DICOM format, and I imported it into GraphicConverter. If anyone's interested, this is what GraphicConverter put in the comments:
Image Type: ORIGINAL\PRIMARYStudy Date: 20010424Acquisition Date: 20010424Image Date: 20010424Study Time: 154340Acquisition Time: 154532Image Time: 154531Accession Number: TiModality: CRManufacturer: Lumisys Institution Name: Institution Address: Referring Physician's Name: Referring Physician's Telephone Numbers: Station Name: OPACS_SENDERStudy Description: Name of Physician(s) Reading Study: Operator's Name: Administrator Admitting Diagnoses Description: Manufacturer's Model Name: Lumisys LS135 Patient's Name: PowerBook^TitaniumPatient ID: Apple Patient's Birth Date: 20010101Patient's Sex: O Other Patient IDs: Ethnic Group: Additional Patient History: Body Part Examined: Device Serial Number: clt35403.datCassette Orientation: PORTRAITCassette Size: 35CMX43CM Relative X-ray Exposure: 1713View Position: Study ID: c0a865080gq5m8Series Number: 1 Image Number: 1 Photometric Interpretation: MONOCHROME2 Pixel Spacing: 0.172\0.172 Study Priority ID: MED Requesting Physician:
Dicom is indeed listed on the list of understood formats. By the way, GC is not limited to OSX; it runs on any Mac with a 68020 or later processor and System 7 or later.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think "let's write something to put on our web site, and get one of the graphics guys to make a pretty logo with an American flag or something, so everyone on Slashdot will see how much we care" was the first thing that came to their mind. I think they were busy watching CNN. I know I was. When I did go to Apple's Web site, I was very impressed that they had replaced their entire front page.
Snapshots from around the Web on 9/14/01
bwahahaha!
So the new hardware isn't going to get a pretty parade in Paris?
It wasn't going to. The only new hardware is a revised PowerBook G4, anyway. The real big thing is Mac OS 10.1, which will still be released on schedule.
Another task I plan on doing often is execute elaborite Finite element models using Matlab. To do this, it would be cool to be able to remotely log into a faster computer to execute code. That "PCAnywhere" feature of XP that you mentioned gives me the impression that I may be able to do that with XP.
Linux has always been able to do this easily. The X window system was designed with exactly this in mind. If you're not running X on the other end, you can set up VNC (fully cross-platform, btw).
It's not like this guy was some innocent arab minding his own business before this happened.
That's fine, but please read the other part of my post. If we assume Bin Laden is responsible for Tuesday's events, we'll just go in and grab Bin Laden, and forget about the others who were involved. This turns Bin Laden into another martyr who died for his cause, and gives his supporters reason to attack us again. If we're going to take action, we need to find out who was responsible, who their friends and supporters were, and grab everybody. Since they seem to welcome death, I'd like to see them sentenced to life in solitary confinement or something, but I'm sure if we do take them alive, they'll probably just be executed.
Don't do this! Just write to the standard DTD and ignore everything else. Providing "optimized" content just makes the compatibility wars rage on, and if you optimize for IE, you're helping MS subvert the documented standards.
The answer to this is obvious: if I write pure standards-compliant HTML, it will render as a horrendous mess in some browsers, and that reflects very poorly on me as a web designer, when most other sites render just fine. Standards are great for browsers that support them, but limiting myself to the W3C standards is just as bad as limiting myself to only supporting the browsers I happen to like.
I suppose if all the browsers you happen to like all fully support W3C standards, you wouldn't understand how this could be a problem.
How about not optimizing your page code instead? Just write HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 or CSS1/CSS2 or Javascript 1.2 or whatever according to the standards ( see www.w3c.org for all of them ) and make life easy on all of us.
Because then it doesn't render correctly in many browsers. I try to check my code at http://validator.w3.org/ periodically, but the reality of Web design is that the official standards only work on some browsers, and to ignore that fact and not compensate for it means some people may not be able to see the site, or it might look like crap, which reflects badly on the designer.
I find it annoying to go to a site and see "Sorry, Netscape 6.x isn't supported.", flip the user-agent string to IE5.5 and discover that the site renders perfectly in Mozilla 0.9.recent. To me it says that the site doesn't care what customers it annoys and that the designer doesn't know how to create HTML pages.
I have never done this. I do occasionally say "sorry, you must have a frames-compatible browser", and of course Netscape 1.x won't work on any site using name-based virtual hosts, but I'll never turn down a browser I don't recognize, and especially not something as common as Mozilla. "Netscape 6 isn't supported" is acceptible ONLY if the message only remains for a few days while the web designer figures out how to work around some quirk, but any web designer who hasn't already done so should be fired, or given a raise and more time to complete that sort of thing. Don't forget the role PHBs play in this.
Screw that! HTML should be standard and browser independent!
That's a nice dream. Unfortunately whenever you write code that's browser-independent, it doesn't work in some browsers.
Of course, you can write simple text-based stuff with minimum formatting, but there's a lot more I want to be able to do. Have you seen Slashdot's HTML recently?
Right, which means we have to keep checking the access_log to figure out what interesting tricks people are using these days.
My code is horrendous, because I try to do interesting things that HTML wasn't designed to do. Each browser has its own peculiar bugs, and I've tried to work around all of them. I mostly use browser detection to determine whether or not your browser will likely support something, and if not, offer an alternative that will definitely work - for example, if you're browsing in Lynx, everything will be fine, but if you set Lynx to pretend it's MSIE, it may not work so well.
Browse around http://phroggy.com/ for awhile. Yes, some of the code is crap. I've tried to test it in Netscape 2-3-4-6, MSIE 3-4-5-6, Mozilla, iCab, OmniWeb, Konqueror, Lynx, Links, and I've just installed Opera so I can try that. Of course I test on Linux and Mac OS and Windows, and have had people send me screen shots from other OSes that I don't have available.
Also make Mozilla reply as "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)".
Please don't do this. It just makes life harder on web designers. How can we optimize our HTML code to render correctly in your browser, if you lie to us about what browser you're using?
Of course, there may be a few cases where it's necessary to do this temporarily, on a per-site basis, but please don't do this long-term.
Talk about overreacting. They talk of workin within the law that's what seperates us from terrorists. Now they are bending it to catch them and prying more rights from us.
I agree. This needs to stop.
Save time and just go in Afganistan and grab the SOB it would be easier.
PLEASE STOP ADVOCATING THIS. We don't know for sure that Bin Laden is responsible, and if he's involved it looks like he wasn't working alone. Going into Afghanistan and killing Bin Laden will not solve anything, and there will be a huge temptation to stop there. We risk turning him into a martyr for his cause, and prompting his supporters to attack again. We need to find out everyone who was behind Tuesday's attacks, and get them all - preferably alive, so they can be interrogated.
The changes you're talking about that would actually reduce server load have nothing to do with mod_gzip - for example, caching comment additions every 30 seconds, and serving them as static pages with a 30-second delay, instead of as dynamic pages.
Slashdot had the bandwidth to handle the traffic. It was the load on the servers - all the Apache threads, etc. - that killed them. mod_gzip would NOT have made this better.
I have to point out that Mac OS X, and NeXTStep before it, was designed to do exactly what you're asking. Mac OS X is very immature right now, but give it a little time for some of these features to be fleshed out again.
Please understand that I personally have no problem with not allowing knives on planes - I was just pointing out why they have been allowed until now: inconvenience.
Thank you. Very insightful.
Airport security MUST improve. Experts have been saying that for YEARS now, and it hasn't happened. However, security can be improved without imposing additional restrictions or inconveniences. We already have restrictions and inconveniences that we are perfectly willing to live with, but the way the security measures are implemented needs to be addressed. I'm OK with x-rays, metal detectors, random searches, etc. etc., but studies have consistently shown that people can still get weapons past security checkpoints. That needs to stop, and adding additional restrictions isn't the way to fix it. The solution is for security people to do their jobs correctly.
I get the impression that the average airport security officer gets about as much training as the average tech support rep, and they have about the same turnover rate. That's a problem.
I pray that your theory is never put to the test, that you are never on a plane trying to explain to hijackers that your country has been nicer to other countries lately while they scream at you about Allah and the religious laws that say that you, as a non-believer, must die.
I think it's very important to keep in mind that Islamic beliefs DO NOT say anything of the sort, and Muslims everywhere have been repeatedly saying that neither they nor their faith condones these actions, despite the threatening phone calls and harassment they have been enduring over the last few days.
That, and can someone please tell me who thought that having knife blades under four inches was allowable? Yeesh.... how deep is your neck anyhow?
A lot of normal, productive, innocent, patriotic American citizens carry pocket knives with them at all times, and would be inconvenienced if they were not allowed to take them past security checkpoints (remember that at least before now, it's not just passengers that pass security, but their friends and family too - people picking them up or dropping them off).
The four inch thing really has nothing to do with the length of the blade, but rather it's an attempt to easily distinguish between pocket knives, which innocent people want to take past security, and butcher knives, which we clearly do not want on airplanes.
Don't feel bad, I'm an American and I don't know what he's talking about either. Just ignore him.
OpenBSD, NetBSD, Linux, mkLinux, MacOS, MacOS X.
And QNX, last I checked (which wasn't recently). And obviosuly Darwin, if you count that seperately (might as well).
It's high time to call for an end to all religion. Atheists value human life most highly, no matter what christian/muslims/jews/ whatever say.
Don't forget that the belief that God doesn't exist is a belief held solely on faith, since it cannot be proven.
As an atheist, I believe that we've only got one shot at life, that placing our trust in any "power higher than ourselves" is idiotic. We make our own destiny.
As a Christian, I also believe that we've only got one shot at life on this Earth, whatever may lie ahead. Placing your trust in a higher power is idiotic for anyone who doesn't believe in the existance of a higher power, but for those of us who believe God is very real and has the ability to protect us, it's not such a bad idea.
We make our own destiny? Tell that to the people who were working in the WTC towers yesterday morning, or to the passengers and crew on the four hijacked planes.
DOWN WITH RELIGON! I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR IMAGINARY FRIENDS, ALLAH or JEHOVAH, NEITHER EXIST.
And I don't care that you don't believe in them. That is your right in this country, protected by the First Ammendment to the United States Constitution, and I fully support your right to believe what you want.
The terrorist's actions are all the worse, becuase they're fighting for an incredibly stupid cause - they misguidedly beleive (like many americans) in some "higher power".
We're not even sure who the terrorists are, let alone what their motivations were. Please don't jump to conclusions prematurely.
I've seen AOL screen names for sale on Ebay. It wouldn't surprise me to start seeing three-character AIM screen names; someone stole all of them with an exploit (that AOL still hasn't patched, after about a year and a half from what I understand) and the script kiddies have been trading them as commodities. If you have a three-character AIM screen name, you should be able to use it to sign up for AOL as well, and I'm sure there must be a demand for names like "ibm" and "foo" (among those who actually use AOL).
Just a thought.
The TiXray.orig file is in DICOM format, and I imported it into GraphicConverter. If anyone's interested, this is what GraphicConverter put in the comments:
Image Type: ORIGINAL\PRIMARYStudy Date: 20010424Acquisition Date: 20010424Image Date: 20010424Study Time: 154340Acquisition Time: 154532Image Time: 154531Accession Number: TiModality: CRManufacturer: Lumisys Institution Name: Institution Address: Referring Physician's Name: Referring Physician's Telephone Numbers: Station Name: OPACS_SENDERStudy Description: Name of Physician(s) Reading Study: Operator's Name: Administrator Admitting Diagnoses Description: Manufacturer's Model Name: Lumisys LS135 Patient's Name: PowerBook^TitaniumPatient ID: Apple Patient's Birth Date: 20010101Patient's Sex: O Other Patient IDs: Ethnic Group: Additional Patient History: Body Part Examined: Device Serial Number: clt35403.datCassette Orientation: PORTRAITCassette Size: 35CMX43CM Relative X-ray Exposure: 1713View Position: Study ID: c0a865080gq5m8Series Number: 1 Image Number: 1 Photometric Interpretation: MONOCHROME2 Pixel Spacing: 0.172\0.172 Study Priority ID: MED Requesting Physician:
Dicom is indeed listed on the list of understood formats. By the way, GC is not limited to OSX; it runs on any Mac with a 68020 or later processor and System 7 or later.
Question:
How did you get Perl to accept the apostrophe as a letter, instead of treating it as a quote mark?