While I doubt that it will actually work, what is wrong for them wanting to expand their viewership?
Nothing is "wrong" with it. In fact I believe they should be able to focus on only a certain group (gender/racial/sexual orientation minority group) of contenstants if they wanted to. But, if they choose a contestant because of some quality other than their qualifications for building robots out of junk, they may not have as interesting a show. It's tough to balance some requirements, especially where certain abilities and interests may have a demographic skew of their own (i.e. more men take engineering classes than women. it may denote a gender bias, it may not, I don't really care, but the bottom line is, you have less female engineers to choose from)
Yes, but what remains to be determined is this: Does that fact that we have cut him off from many of the conveniences of technology make him more or less of a threat? Potentially his living in the cave is going to make him less effective, but it may also make him very innovative. We may be creating the Sardaukar (or the Fremen) of today.
(It's a Dune reference, but if I had to tell you that, we're probably already watching you.)
Well, if they are serious, it would be like a wire tap, (supposedly) only allowed once thay had identified the individual and requested tracking on all accounts used by him.
But what are the chances that they are serious...;)
Re:Please don't give 'Funny' comments to interview
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 1
yeah, i still have a stack of Rolemaster books. I seldom get to play anymore, but their rules have strongly influenced my thinking towards gaming and scoring systems.
120+ on missile weapons vs. large creatures owns;) You should see some of the expanded weapons tables in Arms Law. You'd love it. I used to spend as much time reading the lists and fantasizing over the damage I could do as I did playing.
Re:Please don't give 'Funny' comments to interview
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 1
Did you ever play Rolemaster? Reminds me a lot of their skill system.
Sorta, I read it somewhere between the two. And I agree with you to a point. In the original discussion, the context of "same" was more "close enough" from a business point of view than "pixel perfect" sameness. Many businesses (whether rightly or not, I don't care) believe that their website's look is a sufficient part of their brand to invest some time and money in making it consistent across most browsers. Obviously, at some point it makes no sense to continue supporting certain browsers, but you base that decision on use percentages and other statistics. The emphasis of eddy's initial posts basically called anyone who modified the content sent to a browser based on it's type and version number, an idiot, end of story.
I think that's rather harsh. I don't work for the W3 standards committee, I work for my boss. And if on rare occasion, the only way to satisfy him is to break a W3 recommendation or send different content, I will, end of story.
You don't seem like half of an ass as eddy. His vitriol was the catalyst for my rage. I have no problem with you whatsoever, unless you start calling people idiots because they don't agree with you.
For the last time, I never said pixel perfect and I even pointed out that what I was talking about was just pretty darn close.
Yuo might talk about giving your boss a "performance review" but I live in the real world, where I am selling him my services. If he wants me to waste my time, I can either comply or quit.
It's not so much that I want to do that, but plenty of bosses do, and he that writes the checks makes the rules.
On the other hand, if you keep designing different versions of pages for different browsers, you'll hold back web design and technology (people like you are the reason why CSS1 is a 7-year-old standard that I still can't use to its fullest effect) while not really doing anyone a service.
First of all, I'm not talking about a ton of changes, usually just a few lines on a few pages. But honestly, I have very little sympathy for people who complain that accomodation holds back development. As a business you're goal is not standards compliancy or the accomodation of older browsers, it's to make money. And there's a balance there.
By the way, you're the one who brought up the old WebMac or whatever the heck Stone Age browser. But ultimately, it is up to the owner of a company to decide at what point he feels safe in potentially losing a sale/contact point.
I should also mention that I meant to make my original challenge impossible. That was partly the point. And what I meant was you could use different versions of the page (servlet driven or PHP or JS driven) to handle the older browsers that didn't suport features you wanted to use. There is a point with old browsers like MacWeb where you may have to have your page fail to say, "you can't shop here. you are too old. very old. old. please be younger."
Again, my whole reason for posting, eddy irritated the crap out of me (as I'm sure I've irritated the crap out of you with my inconsistencies - sorry about that;)
I realize it's quite impossible. eddy didn't seem to. There is a balance that can be achieved in any web page between efficient design and kludge. I know this and use this daily in different tasks. eddy was slamming people if they ever sent any different content to an end user based on browser type/version. No matter what. I say sometimes it's necessary,if you want to take advantage of features that didn't use to exist, if you must make apperances as close as possible. I wasn't posting about specific problems, or hoping that eddy could enlighten me so I'd be a better employee. He called people fools for ever deviating from theory, and that sucks in practice. You don't seem to be a bad guy. You only assumed I was asking a real question.
On the other hand, I could design a page that's light, fast, and degrades gracefully for the small number of your users who are using non-compliant browsers. Which would you prefer?
Or I can make a couple of places on the page that have different HTML and get 99% of what you want without huge bloat. For the love, what are you Captain Extreme? "I don't agree with what's he's saying so I'll make up a worst case scenario and take his phrases out of context and make him look stupid"
At the most, it usually takes a few conditional PHP statements to create a page that renders 99% the same in almost all browsers, and keeps customer complaints to a minimum. I really don't care if you choose to do it another way.
I'm not 100% sure who your "he" is. You want to slap an antecedent in their somewhere? If you're referring to eddy, who I quoted in the last post, then you are mistaken. He did say just that. That's what a quote is, a copy of what someone said. You can read it here
Anyone who is attempting to make a page render identically in HTML on two different browsers shouldn't even be USING HTML in the first place
And I suppose you could nitpick the point, but looking the same is not necessarily the same as identical.
It must be readable, yes. It must be functional, yes. It does not need to be identical.
Actually when someone else is paying you, it may have to be a lot more than readable and functional. They may say, get it so close you can't tell the difference.
People who say things like "I have to [...] get thinks to look the same" are saying "I don't understand the web" and should probably not be working with it until they clue on.
This is the statement I have been responding to. It was made way back here If you believe that it is possible to get all versions of (let's limit it to IE and Netscape) to look the same on all current standard compliant HTML then I'll be glad to continue the discussion, but you seem like a smart fellow. I never said that you couldn't find ways to make some things look the same, just that there weren't ways to make all things look the same on all versions of IE and Netscape.
Different browsers have very different handling of CSS. Javascript functions differently in different versions of IE and Netscape. It's been quite a while since I've done some of the work, but there's two. And no, I'm not talking about with current versions of browsers, I'm talking about my grandparents who are still using Windows 95, and I don't know what version IE4, and Unix users who are using Netscape 4.xx, etc. It's very often necessary to send different HTML to these browsers to get the effect you want, without them having to complain that it doesn't work in their browser.
You fail to understand the essence of good system (and web) design.
Thanks Miss Cleo, maybe you'd like to tell me about the mysterious stranger I'm going to meet next week who will change my life forever.
Look, my response was to two posts made by eddy, here and here . eddy said that there was never a need to send specific content to a browser to compensate for that browser's incompatibilities. I disagree. Different versions of IE and Netscape and even Opera handle different content differently. I challenged eddy (or anyone) to tell me a way to make sure that all my users get the same features in a page without modifying my content based on the broken version they may be using, with the caveat that I get to use any feature allowable in standard HTML. Because of this, I get karlm, the psychic software engineer telling me that I don't understand the essence of good system and web design. If you want to post about "graceful failure" and "the essence of good system design", then post it under the main article, but don't pretend that you are responding to my comments.
Keep in mind that I'm not proposing legislation here.
You don't know how nice it is to hear someone say that. I might just add you to my friend's list.
However if I get questions like this from a prospective employer, I'll walk away before taking the job.
More than likely I would too. There are a few jobs where I thinks it's justifiable. And I think walking away is how it get's controlled. I really don't want to work for people who are like that, and that is my perogative.
Thanks for the reply. It's rare to find someone who cuts to the point instead of picking a tangent and going off on it.
But unless you're part of the financial services sector, you shouldn't be subject to a credit check. It's stupid, it's invasive, it accomplishes nothing, and it's immoral.
First of all, unless you have an absolute objective definition of morality you want to go by, all we're discussing is opinion, so don't go off invoking "it's immoral".
Commercial pilots for instance, SHOULD be screened for alcohol and drugs. I would have no problem, as a commercial pilot, filling in reports on recent consumption before every single flight. At 6000 ft air pressure, tiny amounts of mental dullness magnify.
Basically you are saying that if an emplpoyer can show that there is risk to others then certain things become justifiable. What about the employer's risk? He's not hiring someone because he likes giving away money, he's hiring them because he believes that their labor will make him more money than what he will lose by paying them. He believes that the initial investment he is making in them (traininig, insurance costs, taxes, office space, equipment, etc.) will pay off in the long run. In other words, they have to make him a certain amount of money in the time that they are in his employ, so that he can just break even.
NONE of these are valid for most jobs. I could get totally stoned on the weekend and it wouldn't necessarily affect my performance. I could be broke and in debt, and it wouldn't necessarily affect my performance.
You say they aren't valid, the prospective employer says they are. You want to go off to the government and cry "He's asking me questions I don't want to answer." What's the government going to say "Hire him whether you feel comfortable about it or not. Oh, and prospective employess also can't ask about the financial stability of the company." Why should the person taking the least risk get to offer the least information? Whose taking a greater risk? You or him? (Don't get me wrong, sometimes the employee is the greater risk taker, and in those cases, has the greater power) You could always put up the amount of cash the employer stands to lose if you don't work out as insurance, but don't tell someone they don't have the right to ask a question before they take a gamble. You can always work elsewhere.
I should also say this. I don't think an employer needs a credit check before they hire for most positions (the one in the post was a director position, and I can see that), but I'm sure as heck not going to enforce that on someone else who is risking their own (or their shareholder's) money. I can only make that decision for myself.
I think a company should be able to require almost anything before hiring someone. Of course, this is always subject to the laws of supply and demand. When the economy is booming and jobs are plentiful, prospective employess have more "screw you" power. In today's market, the employer has the upper hand.
As for talking them out of it, assuming that they are dead set on requiring this, here's my advice.
1. Make your case for why you are against it. Argue the right of privacy, and argue it as a principle you believe in and live by, not as a preference. Otherwise, why should they give in to your preference over their own.
2. Give them what they really want. More than likely the goal is to know that they are hiring someone who is not in a desperate financial situation, or who is unethical (if they have other goals, you might not want to work there). Find another way to satisfy their insecurities; they may be willing to accept a more extensive list of references (landlords, previous bosses, etc.) or something along those lines. The important thing here is this: if this is a company policy, you don't want to try to get them to make an exception for you unless you have no other recourse or feel that strongly about it. By explaining why you can't meet the letter of the law, but are willing to meet the spirit of it, you can possibly turn a negative situation into a positive one.
Then, as I said, you're part of the problem. If you don't realize that, that's doubly sad.
People who say things like "I have to [...] get thinks to look the same" are saying "I don't understand the web" and should probably not be working with it until they clue on.
Well, gee Eddy, since you do, "understand the web", maybe you can give us all a solution for the follow problem that also fits the following criteria:
1. any visitor using any web browser that comes to your site can view a working web page without having to upgrade their browser or use a different version.
2. You must be able to use any HTML feature approved by the W3
3. You must not modify the HTML sent based on browser type
Slashdot Mirror
Developers are obliged to make the minimum 10 hours a week commitment...
Let's see here, 8 people working at 10 hours a week. Is LGP also managing the team working on Duke Nukem Forever?
How do they block it without knowing what the sites are?
Obviously they can't. They have to identify the site first.
If they know where the sites are, why haven't they been shut down?
I assume, because of jurisdiction. Remember this is a Pennsylvania court.
I talked to Mr. Håkon Wium Lie myself
Never believe a man named Mr. Lie
--
That name again is Mr. Lie
very intelligent opponents...
If you say so, but then what would I know? I'm just a chat bot...
--
Humans are weird...
Realistically, they aren't. They are making it an offense to violate your request to not be called by businesses.
There's a big difference in my opinion.
While I doubt that it will actually work, what is wrong for them wanting to expand their viewership?
Nothing is "wrong" with it. In fact I believe they should be able to focus on only a certain group (gender/racial/sexual orientation minority group) of contenstants if they wanted to.
But, if they choose a contestant because of some quality other than their qualifications for building robots out of junk, they may not have as interesting a show.
It's tough to balance some requirements, especially where certain abilities and interests may have a demographic skew of their own (i.e. more men take engineering classes than women. it may denote a gender bias, it may not, I don't really care, but the bottom line is, you have less female engineers to choose from)
Yes, but what remains to be determined is this: Does that fact that we have cut him off from many of the conveniences of technology make him more or less of a threat? Potentially his living in the cave is going to make him less effective, but it may also make him very innovative. We may be creating the Sardaukar (or the Fremen) of today.
(It's a Dune reference, but if I had to tell you that, we're probably already watching you.)
Well, if they are serious, it would be like a wire tap, (supposedly) only allowed once thay had identified the individual and requested tracking on all accounts used by him.
;)
But what are the chances that they are serious...
yeah, i still have a stack of Rolemaster books. I seldom get to play anymore, but their rules have strongly influenced my thinking towards gaming and scoring systems.
;) You should see some of the expanded weapons tables in Arms Law. You'd love it. I used to spend as much time reading the lists and fantasizing over the damage I could do as I did playing.
120+ on missile weapons vs. large creatures owns
Did you ever play Rolemaster?
Reminds me a lot of their skill system.
"Now you see that Evil [upevil.net] will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet
;)
Uhm, good may be dumb, but evil looks like they're just now getting online...
Sorta, I read it somewhere between the two. And I agree with you to a point. In the original discussion, the context of "same" was more "close enough" from a business point of view than "pixel perfect" sameness. Many businesses (whether rightly or not, I don't care) believe that their website's look is a sufficient part of their brand to invest some time and money in making it consistent across most browsers. Obviously, at some point it makes no sense to continue supporting certain browsers, but you base that decision on use percentages and other statistics. The emphasis of eddy's initial posts basically called anyone who modified the content sent to a browser based on it's type and version number, an idiot, end of story.
I think that's rather harsh. I don't work for the W3 standards committee, I work for my boss. And if on rare occasion, the only way to satisfy him is to break a W3 recommendation or send different content, I will, end of story.
You don't seem like half of an ass as eddy. His vitriol was the catalyst for my rage. I have no problem with you whatsoever, unless you start calling people idiots because they don't agree with you.
For the last time, I never said pixel perfect and I even pointed out that what I was talking about was just pretty darn close.
Yuo might talk about giving your boss a "performance review" but I live in the real world, where I am selling him my services. If he wants me to waste my time, I can either comply or quit.
I think I'm done here.
It's not so much that I want to do that, but plenty of bosses do, and he that writes the checks makes the rules.
On the other hand, if you keep designing different versions of pages for different browsers, you'll hold back web design and technology (people like you are the reason why CSS1 is a 7-year-old standard that I still can't use to its fullest effect) while not really doing anyone a service.
First of all, I'm not talking about a ton of changes, usually just a few lines on a few pages.
But honestly, I have very little sympathy for people who complain that accomodation holds back development. As a business you're goal is not standards compliancy or the accomodation of older browsers, it's to make money. And there's a balance there.
By the way, you're the one who brought up the old WebMac or whatever the heck Stone Age browser. But ultimately, it is up to the owner of a company to decide at what point he feels safe in potentially losing a sale/contact point.
I should also mention that I meant to make my original challenge impossible. That was partly the point. And what I meant was you could use different versions of the page (servlet driven or PHP or JS driven) to handle the older browsers that didn't suport features you wanted to use. There is a point with old browsers like MacWeb where you may have to have your page fail to say, "you can't shop here. you are too old. very old. old. please be younger."
;)
Again, my whole reason for posting, eddy irritated the crap out of me (as I'm sure I've irritated the crap out of you with my inconsistencies - sorry about that
I realize it's quite impossible. eddy didn't seem to. There is a balance that can be achieved in any web page between efficient design and kludge. I know this and use this daily in different tasks. eddy was slamming people if they ever sent any different content to an end user based on browser type/version. No matter what. I say sometimes it's necessary,if you want to take advantage of features that didn't use to exist, if you must make apperances as close as possible. I wasn't posting about specific problems, or hoping that eddy could enlighten me so I'd be a better employee. He called people fools for ever deviating from theory, and that sucks in practice. You don't seem to be a bad guy. You only assumed I was asking a real question.
On the other hand, I could design a page that's light, fast, and degrades gracefully for the small number of your users who are using non-compliant browsers. Which would you prefer?
Or I can make a couple of places on the page that have different HTML and get 99% of what you want without huge bloat. For the love, what are you Captain Extreme? "I don't agree with what's he's saying so I'll make up a worst case scenario and take his phrases out of context and make him look stupid"
At the most, it usually takes a few conditional PHP statements to create a page that renders 99% the same in almost all browsers, and keeps customer complaints to a minimum. I really don't care if you choose to do it another way.
He never said they had to look the same
I'm not 100% sure who your "he" is. You want to slap an antecedent in their somewhere?
If you're referring to eddy, who I quoted in the last post, then you are mistaken. He did say just that. That's what a quote is, a copy of what someone said. You can read it here
Anyone who is attempting to make a page render identically in HTML on two different browsers shouldn't even be USING HTML in the first place
And I suppose you could nitpick the point, but looking the same is not necessarily the same as identical.
It must be readable, yes. It must be functional, yes. It does not need to be identical.
Actually when someone else is paying you, it may have to be a lot more than readable and functional. They may say, get it so close you can't tell the difference.
Anyone that says so is lying.
They might be stupid, but lying?
People who say things like "I have to [...] get thinks to look the same" are saying "I don't understand the web" and should probably not be working with it until they clue on.
This is the statement I have been responding to. It was made way back here If you believe that it is possible to get all versions of (let's limit it to IE and Netscape) to look the same on all current standard compliant HTML then I'll be glad to continue the discussion, but you seem like a smart fellow. I never said that you couldn't find ways to make some things look the same, just that there weren't ways to make all things look the same on all versions of IE and Netscape.
Different browsers have very different handling of CSS.
Javascript functions differently in different versions of IE and Netscape.
It's been quite a while since I've done some of the work, but there's two. And no, I'm not talking about with current versions of browsers, I'm talking about my grandparents who are still using Windows 95, and I don't know what version IE4, and Unix users who are using Netscape 4.xx, etc.
It's very often necessary to send different HTML to these browsers to get the effect you want, without them having to complain that it doesn't work in their browser.
Your challenge is not difficult at all.
So respond to it.
You fail to understand the essence of good system (and web) design.
Thanks Miss Cleo, maybe you'd like to tell me about the mysterious stranger I'm going to meet next week who will change my life forever.
Look, my response was to two posts made by eddy, here and here . eddy said that there was never a need to send specific content to a browser to compensate for that browser's incompatibilities. I disagree. Different versions of IE and Netscape and even Opera handle different content differently. I challenged eddy (or anyone) to tell me a way to make sure that all my users get the same features in a page without modifying my content based on the broken version they may be using, with the caveat that I get to use any feature allowable in standard HTML.
Because of this, I get karlm, the psychic software engineer telling me that I don't understand the essence of good system and web design.
If you want to post about "graceful failure" and "the essence of good system design", then post it under the main article, but don't pretend that you are responding to my comments.
Keep in mind that I'm not proposing legislation here.
You don't know how nice it is to hear someone say that. I might just add you to my friend's list.
However if I get questions like this from a prospective employer, I'll walk away before taking the job.
More than likely I would too. There are a few jobs where I thinks it's justifiable. And I think walking away is how it get's controlled. I really don't want to work for people who are like that, and that is my perogative.
Thanks for the reply. It's rare to find someone who cuts to the point instead of picking a tangent and going off on it.
But unless you're part of the financial services sector, you shouldn't be subject to a credit check. It's stupid, it's invasive, it accomplishes nothing, and it's immoral.
First of all, unless you have an absolute objective definition of morality you want to go by, all we're discussing is opinion, so don't go off invoking "it's immoral".
Commercial pilots for instance, SHOULD be screened for alcohol and drugs. I would have no problem, as a commercial pilot, filling in reports on recent consumption before every single flight. At 6000 ft air pressure, tiny amounts of mental dullness magnify.
Basically you are saying that if an emplpoyer can show that there is risk to others then certain things become justifiable. What about the employer's risk? He's not hiring someone because he likes giving away money, he's hiring them because he believes that their labor will make him more money than what he will lose by paying them. He believes that the initial investment he is making in them (traininig, insurance costs, taxes, office space, equipment, etc.) will pay off in the long run. In other words, they have to make him a certain amount of money in the time that they are in his employ, so that he can just break even.
NONE of these are valid for most jobs. I could get totally stoned on the weekend and it wouldn't necessarily affect my performance. I could be broke and in debt, and it wouldn't necessarily affect my performance.
You say they aren't valid, the prospective employer says they are. You want to go off to the government and cry "He's asking me questions I don't want to answer." What's the government going to say "Hire him whether you feel comfortable about it or not. Oh, and prospective employess also can't ask about the financial stability of the company."
Why should the person taking the least risk get to offer the least information? Whose taking a greater risk? You or him? (Don't get me wrong, sometimes the employee is the greater risk taker, and in those cases, has the greater power) You could always put up the amount of cash the employer stands to lose if you don't work out as insurance, but don't tell someone they don't have the right to ask a question before they take a gamble. You can always work elsewhere.
I should also say this. I don't think an employer needs a credit check before they hire for most positions (the one in the post was a director position, and I can see that), but I'm sure as heck not going to enforce that on someone else who is risking their own (or their shareholder's) money. I can only make that decision for myself.
I think a company should be able to require almost anything before hiring someone. Of course, this is always subject to the laws of supply and demand. When the economy is booming and jobs are plentiful, prospective employess have more "screw you" power. In today's market, the employer has the upper hand.
As for talking them out of it, assuming that they are dead set on requiring this, here's my advice.
1. Make your case for why you are against it. Argue the right of privacy, and argue it as a principle you believe in and live by, not as a preference. Otherwise, why should they give in to your preference over their own.
2. Give them what they really want.
More than likely the goal is to know that they are hiring someone who is not in a desperate financial situation, or who is unethical (if they have other goals, you might not want to work there). Find another way to satisfy their insecurities; they may be willing to accept a more extensive list of references (landlords, previous bosses, etc.) or something along those lines. The important thing here is this: if this is a company policy, you don't want to try to get them to make an exception for you unless you have no other recourse or feel that strongly about it. By explaining why you can't meet the letter of the law, but are willing to meet the spirit of it, you can possibly turn a negative situation into a positive one.
Just my 2 cents, but then, you did ask.
Then, as I said, you're part of the problem. If you don't realize that, that's doubly sad.
People who say things like "I have to [...] get thinks to look the same" are saying "I don't understand the web" and should probably not be working with it until they clue on.
Well, gee Eddy, since you do, "understand the web", maybe you can give us all a solution for the follow problem that also fits the following criteria:
1. any visitor using any web browser that comes to your site can view a working web page without having to upgrade their browser or use a different version.
2. You must be able to use any HTML feature approved by the W3
3. You must not modify the HTML sent based on browser type
Please help us understand as well as you.
--
My duck doesn't like you.