Yeah, I'd be very happy if they offered a MacBook Pro in a 13" MacBook form factor, but they don't, so I'm willing to settle for 15" (as soon as I can find $2500).
This always worked fine for me in 1.5; I haven't tried it in 2.0 yet. Are you saying this is something they recently broke? Try creating a new profile and see if that solves the problem.
But to talk to most web guys and you come away with the impression that they're not here to get work done. They're here to futz around with whiz-bang isn't-that-cool crap and waste time making it work with every browser under the sun.
Strange... usually the web guys who want to futz around with whiz-bang isn't-that-cool crap are loathed and despised by the web guys who want to make their sites work with every browser under the sun (which isn't a waste of time at all if the site you're working on has any connection to generating revenue for your client).
I've been running Firefox on OSX for at least a year. Apparently someone has made a Safari version of the HTML Validator extension (which is currently unavailable for FF2.0/Mac; the developer says he's working on it), so I could probably switch back if I really wanted to... but FF2.0 takes away most of the reasons I would have for switching back (spell check, improved tab UI, etc.).
Now, before you suggest it, it's not as easy as putting in.htaccess restrictions, or setting the permissions on the files so people can't download them. The nitty-gritty details are in the newsgroups.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - a Slashdot meme was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
What are you, a Perl programmer?!? DEMONS BE GONE!!
Hey now! Perl is better about working consistently regardless of context than a lot of other languages. It's just... well... sort of confusing to figure out how it consistently works, sometimes.:-P
You may not have any idea about this one, but I figure I'll ask anyways. In IE6, a tag was required in the html to enable standards-compliant mode (which still wasn't, but that's beside the point). Why was this not enabled by default?
What you're talking about is the DOCTYPE declaration. If you want to write standards-compliant code, you should be testing it with the W3C Validator, which will give you a warning (with a link to an explanation) if you fail to include a DOCTYPE declaration.
If you don't want to write standards-compliant code, you probably want your site to look the same as it did in IE4, which means you don't want the browser to behave in a standards-compliant way. So, IE7 and IE6 and Firefox will all fall back to a "quirks mode" which attempts to guess what the HTML author meant, instead of following the standards. If this didn't happen, the majority of web sites would break, and users would blame the browser, not the web site.
.. which is certain websites requiring IE to work.
Fortunately, some of these sites require IE6 to work, and their browser compatibility tests will fail on IE7. This will motivate some people to fix the problem.
(It will motivate other people to just upgrade their compatibility tests, but Firefox is big enough now that they might as well deal with it...)
Re:On file sharing and leaking videos
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 1
So after all of those Internet hackers have been destroying musicians' careers with their file sharing, and leaking videos, and other piratical nonsense...
You make something people want, and it SELLS.
Don't forget that Straight Outta Lynwood includes the song "Don't Download This Song", which may be downloaded from dontdownloadthissong.com. Brilliant.
Once you introduce technology, the playing field is no longer level - one side (the more tech-savy side) may be able to cheat without the other side even knowing.
There are computer-illiterate morons and Slashdot-reading hackers on both sides of the political spectrum. It may be true that there are more tech-savvy Democrats than Republicans, but there are some really smart Republicans (not necessarily the people actually in office, but the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings, have connections). After all, isn't it mostly Republicans who are being accused of using broken voting machines to tip the balance to their side?
A level playing field isn't the issue here. The issue is transparency and accountability.
Instead, the editors who post the story should be tagging it appropriately.
We have that, we call them "topics".
As well as that, there should be a common set of tags that can be voted on for each story ( dupe, inaccurate, comfirmed, ect.. ), with the voting be weighed by user.
And who's going to come up with that common set of tags? The editors? Do you really think they're going to put useful things like "slownewsday" on the list?
Yes, it's a DualDisc, which is basically a standard audio CD and a DVD stuck together back-to-back. I had no problem ripping the audio to MP3s using iTunes on my iBook with a slot-load drive. However, the DualDisc does seem to be slightly thicker than a normal CD or DVD, and this could cause problems in some drives, especially in a car stereo. My recommendation is to rip it on a computer with a normal tray-load CD-ROM drive, then burn a copy to play in your car or whatever.
The sticker isn't a parody, but it's a little misleading. As far as I can tell, there's no weird DRM crap on the CD, it's just physically a little thick. I haven't had a problem, but YMMV.
I was extremely disappointed that the video for "White and Nerdy" was NOT included on the DVD. The behind-the-scenes video was very interesting, though.
How much have you used Spotlight? Have you tried Spotlight Comments? What are you looking for, that would be different than what Spotlight currently does?
The Finder needs some work; specifically, the inability to refresh and find a file that I *KNOW* makes me want to chuck it out a window.
If a Finder window needs to be refreshed, it's a bug. Actually, come to think of it, that might not be true when working on a network file server, but for local files, the Finder should always be displaying current information. When working on a file server, things can change on the server that the client isn't aware of, so yeah, some sort of refresh option would be good. Can't be Cmd-R, since that's already taken ("Show Original" for aliases). I usually use Cmd-Opt-Up, Cmd-Opt-Down.
There are other problems too, it seems to hang sometimes, and it's very difficult to figure out the key combo that lets me empty the trash of files that are orphan-locked.
Not being able to empty the trash sounds like another bug. Can you reproduce it? If so, file a bug report with Apple, with a list of steps needed to reproduce the problem.
Also, the finder can get into a state where the highlighted shortcut in the left panel doesn't correspond to the directory being displayed in the right panel. This should never happen.
I haven't run into this problem.
I do have problems with a mounted network volume not unmounting correctly, and sometimes the icon stays in the left panel when it should disappear, or disappears when I try to unmount but the volume is really still mounted. It sounds like all these problems will get fixed in 10.5.
But gimme a goddamned refresh button before you do anything else.
A refresh button for network volumes would be good. But if you're having a problem with local files not showing up correctly, adding a refresh button isn't the right solution.
As an added bonus, if the spammer keeps a database of which unique URLs were sent to which e-mail addresses, then if they receive a hit at a particular URL (even if you submit bogus information, or don't submit anything at all), they can check off the corresponding e-mail address as "verified".
I really can't see URL hashes working out too well, once everyone starts using them (all four major browsers will soon support anti-phishing, as do a plethora of toolbars for IE6; I'll assume they all work the same way until I hear otherwise). Spammers will adapt - some of them probably already have. If you send the full URL, then you've got a chance, because the server can do pattern matching on it, but of course then you've got (even worse) privacy issues.
Downloading a list (which may include wildcards) instead of sending URLs sounds like a good idea, especially if you can use something like rsync to only download the modifications instead of re-downloading the list all the time. The problem here is speed: if you only update your list once every 24 hours, then if a new round of spam is sent out at 9am and gets caught by the anti-phishing team at noon, even if you don't check your mail until 5pm you still won't get any warning if your definitions don't update until midnight. Of course, there's still that 9am to noon window either way...
Phoning home means sending personal, identifying information back to the author of a program, usually with nefarious intent. This is a feature that uses an Opera server in a non-identifying way to determine if the site you're going to is fraudulent. Huge difference.
Sorry, no. Phoning home means the application is contacting its creators, regardless of what information is being sent or retrieved. The most common purpose of this is to check for updated versions of the software, and to notify the user when one is available, without sending any personal information whatsoever; it still counts as phoning home, even when I authorize it (I usually do).
Also, the rules are different for TV vs. film. I've heard it said that film is a director's medium - what you see on screen is, for the most part, the director's vision. Television is a producer's medium - each episode is done by a different director, and the producer (not the director) is responsible for putting everything together after the footage has been shot.
Slashdot Mirror
No?
13" is wider than 12", but not any deeper (or whatever the other dimension is called), right? I can live with that.
Yeah, I'd be very happy if they offered a MacBook Pro in a 13" MacBook form factor, but they don't, so I'm willing to settle for 15" (as soon as I can find $2500).
Get a 64-bit version of Windows and you have nothing to worry about. ...except all of your drivers working. ;-)
This always worked fine for me in 1.5; I haven't tried it in 2.0 yet. Are you saying this is something they recently broke? Try creating a new profile and see if that solves the problem.
But to talk to most web guys and you come away with the impression that they're not here to get work done. They're here to futz around with whiz-bang isn't-that-cool crap and waste time making it work with every browser under the sun.
Strange... usually the web guys who want to futz around with whiz-bang isn't-that-cool crap are loathed and despised by the web guys who want to make their sites work with every browser under the sun (which isn't a waste of time at all if the site you're working on has any connection to generating revenue for your client).
I've been running Firefox on OSX for at least a year. Apparently someone has made a Safari version of the HTML Validator extension (which is currently unavailable for FF2.0/Mac; the developer says he's working on it), so I could probably switch back if I really wanted to... but FF2.0 takes away most of the reasons I would have for switching back (spell check, improved tab UI, etc.).
I'm running RC3, but it doesn't say RC3 anywhere. Only the filename of the download file says RC3.
When Mozilla calls something a "Release Candidate", they're not fooling around.
Unlike some other organizations that start with "M".
Wait, are we supposed to be using unsigned bits?
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - a Slashdot meme was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
What are you, a Perl programmer?!? DEMONS BE GONE!!
:-P
Hey now! Perl is better about working consistently regardless of context than a lot of other languages. It's just... well... sort of confusing to figure out how it consistently works, sometimes.
You may not have any idea about this one, but I figure I'll ask anyways. In IE6, a tag was required in the html to enable standards-compliant mode (which still wasn't, but that's beside the point). Why was this not enabled by default?
What you're talking about is the DOCTYPE declaration. If you want to write standards-compliant code, you should be testing it with the W3C Validator, which will give you a warning (with a link to an explanation) if you fail to include a DOCTYPE declaration.
If you don't want to write standards-compliant code, you probably want your site to look the same as it did in IE4, which means you don't want the browser to behave in a standards-compliant way. So, IE7 and IE6 and Firefox will all fall back to a "quirks mode" which attempts to guess what the HTML author meant, instead of following the standards. If this didn't happen, the majority of web sites would break, and users would blame the browser, not the web site.
.. which is certain websites requiring IE to work.
Fortunately, some of these sites require IE6 to work, and their browser compatibility tests will fail on IE7. This will motivate some people to fix the problem.
(It will motivate other people to just upgrade their compatibility tests, but Firefox is big enough now that they might as well deal with it...)
So after all of those Internet hackers have been destroying musicians' careers with their file sharing, and leaking videos, and other piratical nonsense...
You make something people want, and it SELLS.
Don't forget that Straight Outta Lynwood includes the song "Don't Download This Song", which may be downloaded from dontdownloadthissong.com. Brilliant.
Once you introduce technology, the playing field is no longer level - one side (the more tech-savy side) may be able to cheat without the other side even knowing.
There are computer-illiterate morons and Slashdot-reading hackers on both sides of the political spectrum. It may be true that there are more tech-savvy Democrats than Republicans, but there are some really smart Republicans (not necessarily the people actually in office, but the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings, have connections). After all, isn't it mostly Republicans who are being accused of using broken voting machines to tip the balance to their side?
A level playing field isn't the issue here. The issue is transparency and accountability.
I rather appreciate the "slownewsday" tag too.
Instead, the editors who post the story should be tagging it appropriately.
We have that, we call them "topics".
As well as that, there should be a common set of tags that can be voted on for each story ( dupe, inaccurate, comfirmed, ect.. ), with the voting be weighed by user.
And who's going to come up with that common set of tags? The editors? Do you really think they're going to put useful things like "slownewsday" on the list?
Just to add my own comments:
Yes, it's a DualDisc, which is basically a standard audio CD and a DVD stuck together back-to-back. I had no problem ripping the audio to MP3s using iTunes on my iBook with a slot-load drive. However, the DualDisc does seem to be slightly thicker than a normal CD or DVD, and this could cause problems in some drives, especially in a car stereo. My recommendation is to rip it on a computer with a normal tray-load CD-ROM drive, then burn a copy to play in your car or whatever.
The sticker isn't a parody, but it's a little misleading. As far as I can tell, there's no weird DRM crap on the CD, it's just physically a little thick. I haven't had a problem, but YMMV.
I was extremely disappointed that the video for "White and Nerdy" was NOT included on the DVD. The behind-the-scenes video was very interesting, though.
I was thinking more along the lines of Isaac Hayes...
How much have you used Spotlight? Have you tried Spotlight Comments? What are you looking for, that would be different than what Spotlight currently does?
The Finder needs some work; specifically, the inability to refresh and find a file that I *KNOW* makes me want to chuck it out a window.
If a Finder window needs to be refreshed, it's a bug. Actually, come to think of it, that might not be true when working on a network file server, but for local files, the Finder should always be displaying current information. When working on a file server, things can change on the server that the client isn't aware of, so yeah, some sort of refresh option would be good. Can't be Cmd-R, since that's already taken ("Show Original" for aliases). I usually use Cmd-Opt-Up, Cmd-Opt-Down.
There are other problems too, it seems to hang sometimes, and it's very difficult to figure out the key combo that lets me empty the trash of files that are orphan-locked.
Not being able to empty the trash sounds like another bug. Can you reproduce it? If so, file a bug report with Apple, with a list of steps needed to reproduce the problem.
Also, the finder can get into a state where the highlighted shortcut in the left panel doesn't correspond to the directory being displayed in the right panel. This should never happen.
I haven't run into this problem.
I do have problems with a mounted network volume not unmounting correctly, and sometimes the icon stays in the left panel when it should disappear, or disappears when I try to unmount but the volume is really still mounted. It sounds like all these problems will get fixed in 10.5.
But gimme a goddamned refresh button before you do anything else.
A refresh button for network volumes would be good. But if you're having a problem with local files not showing up correctly, adding a refresh button isn't the right solution.
So all the spammer has to do is set up wildcard DNS so *.phishing.example.com all points to the same place, then send e-mails with unique URLs:
http://001.phishing.example.com/clickme.php
http://002.phishing.example.com/clickme.php
http://003.phishing.example.com/clickme.php
Or, without using DNS at all, just use unique paths:
http://172.16.255.42/001/clickme.php
http://172.16.255.42/002/clickme.php
http://172.16.255.42/003/clickme.php
As an added bonus, if the spammer keeps a database of which unique URLs were sent to which e-mail addresses, then if they receive a hit at a particular URL (even if you submit bogus information, or don't submit anything at all), they can check off the corresponding e-mail address as "verified".
I really can't see URL hashes working out too well, once everyone starts using them (all four major browsers will soon support anti-phishing, as do a plethora of toolbars for IE6; I'll assume they all work the same way until I hear otherwise). Spammers will adapt - some of them probably already have. If you send the full URL, then you've got a chance, because the server can do pattern matching on it, but of course then you've got (even worse) privacy issues.
Downloading a list (which may include wildcards) instead of sending URLs sounds like a good idea, especially if you can use something like rsync to only download the modifications instead of re-downloading the list all the time. The problem here is speed: if you only update your list once every 24 hours, then if a new round of spam is sent out at 9am and gets caught by the anti-phishing team at noon, even if you don't check your mail until 5pm you still won't get any warning if your definitions don't update until midnight. Of course, there's still that 9am to noon window either way...
Phoning home means sending personal, identifying information back to the author of a program, usually with nefarious intent. This is a feature that uses an Opera server in a non-identifying way to determine if the site you're going to is fraudulent. Huge difference.
Sorry, no. Phoning home means the application is contacting its creators, regardless of what information is being sent or retrieved. The most common purpose of this is to check for updated versions of the software, and to notify the user when one is available, without sending any personal information whatsoever; it still counts as phoning home, even when I authorize it (I usually do).
Also, the rules are different for TV vs. film. I've heard it said that film is a director's medium - what you see on screen is, for the most part, the director's vision. Television is a producer's medium - each episode is done by a different director, and the producer (not the director) is responsible for putting everything together after the footage has been shot.