This isn't the first time I've heard of them doing something like this. Basically, if they don't like some content on your website utilizing a domain registered through GoDaddy, they'll revoke the registration. No court order required.
The one thing I can't figure out is why they are so highly rated by the more technical users. Is it their lower prices combined with decent customer service? I pay a bit more at Dotster, but I've never heard of them yanking a domain for no good reason.
Don't believe the Macromedia/Adobe hype. Of course they're gonna tell you that everyone has Flash.
I did my own checking on a busy non-biased (i.e. non-geeky) site a few years ago. I came up with around 73% market penetration. And this was BEFORE all the overlay Flash ads and pop-ups were so prevalent. For the record, MM was still claiming 97+% of users had it installed back then.
In all fairness, this was before Flash video had arrived with Youtube and Google Vids, etc.
I may be a little lost here, but if you're going to authenticate a client, why not use a client-side certificate? Is it too difficult to understand? Is the support in browsers/servers not there?
From my (limited) experience with this, it seems like it's a workable solution that would work on most browsers, no matter the OS, without a proprietary plug-in like Flash.
Probably because most people have no concept of tables using percentages. Note the overwhelming number of sites that are constrained by a master table set to 800px width.
Granted, considering what that screenshot someone posted looked like, it may be next to impossible to accomplish that in tables and make it work right. But I would have given it a shot.
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 1
Quick generation check: what will happen with the screen if I'll type POKE 53280, 0 on a commodore-64?;-)
> I'd rather have the Superbird. The Charger was a bit of barely functional body kit.
Not quite. Actually, while the cars look almost identical, the Charger Daytona was slightly more aerodynamically "slippery." In fact, last time I heard, the Daytona still held a number of speed records for production cars. The Superbird, however, seems to be more visually appealing to most. Same engines available as well...except that the Superbird had the added 440/6BBL as an option.
> Unfortunately, NASCAR, yet again, buried their heads in their ass and banned wing cars. [...] And hence we have the technological backwater that is NASCAR.
Agreed. They, along with everyone else, have forgotten what the "SC" in "NASCAR" stands for. It's not worth watching. They have crippled the damn cars even more since 1971.
Perhaps multiple files over different networking procotols (SMB for Windows machines, NFS for the Linux machines) mapped to built-in loopback devices (/dev/loX) accessed through built-in md utilizing software RAID5? Heh. It might not be pretty or fast, but it would probably work just fine. It may just give the kernel absolute fits though.
Oh, one more thing I found out in extensive tests: the MS IE patches don't always work as advertised. If they did, it would be easy to say "if you get garbage on these pages, install SP1 for your browser." They appear to fix it somewhat, but not always. The "sometimes" bug still exists in 5.5 SP1 and 6.0 SP1...and that is why mod_gzip is disabled now.
Now that is beautiful. However, I run a couple of e-commerce sites from that server. Blocking potential customers via that module would be...bad. It's also crazy to block those potential customers that don't have certain plug-ins installed.
For example, my own tests have revealed that Flash is installed in 70% or less of browsers that frequent one of these sites. That's 30+% of your users that you'd be locking out! That's also quite a bit smaller than the 93% that I've seen Macromedia claim; I wonder why they would lie.
The article mentions that this will be of particular interest for web servers.
I'm assuming one is referring to something that will work with mod_gzip. That may be fine and dandy, but I just recently had to disable mod_gzip on my server. You can blame Microsoft.[1] It seems that both IE 5.5 and 6.0 have nasty little "sometimes" bugs[2] where they won't know what do with gzipped content. I tried to disable by user agent header with no luck. If anyone else has some good pointers or perhaps even a link to a patched version of mod_gzip that'll avoid those two bugs, I would apprieciate it.
[1] No, really. This isn't a troll. They even admit the bugs. [2] Microsoft Knowledge Base Articles: Q313712 IE 5.5Q312496 IE 6.0
buzzbomb@mars:~$ ping yahoo.com
PING yahoo.com (64.58.79.230): 56 octets data
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=757610.6 ms
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=757638.2 ms
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=757620.5 ms
--- yahoo.com ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 757610.6/757623.1/757638.2 ms
In Windows 2000, you can manually edit the Registry to get rid of these keys. Unlike msconfig, there is no going back, so make sure you know what you're doing! Look in HKLM or HKCU under Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run. You should find the little bugger there. Delete it.
This works well in theory, but I've found that it gets re-enabled the next time Real is started. On an NT-based system (NT, 2000, XP) you'll need to remove "execute" permission to the eventsvc file...or just delete it. Real doesn't complain and still works fine.
The article is on gideontech.com. That's precisely what the link on the submitters nick is as well. I love it when people pimp their own shit and the editors post it.:/
I, for one, don't care about this stuff. I prefer to create my content using the computer as a tool...not as an integral part of my "art." If you get your rocks off cutting holes in computers and putting in neon lights, you need to get out of the house more. It was bad enough that people were doing this shit to cars, but now computers too? Pathetic.
So the Apache group has once again proven that they can deliver both a slow and insecure web server. How many more security holes will Apache have before it is "secure"? And when will Apache deliver truly high performance by having a non blocking I/O model?
When will you stop bitching and join the Apache devel team to help make it secure? When will you submit a non-blocking I/O patch to the Apache codebase?
If you don't like the direction they are going, either don't use it or join the devel team. There's no need to bitch and moan about it like it intimately affects your life.
Apache is NOT the fastest out there...but it is the most configurable (PHP, Perl, etc) and the best all-around webserver there is. Many of us think that the Apache team has done great work and we apprieciate every minute of it.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't the first time I've heard of them doing something like this. Basically, if they don't like some content on your website utilizing a domain registered through GoDaddy, they'll revoke the registration. No court order required.
The one thing I can't figure out is why they are so highly rated by the more technical users. Is it their lower prices combined with decent customer service? I pay a bit more at Dotster, but I've never heard of them yanking a domain for no good reason.
Thus, fuck GoDaddy and their shit policies.
Don't believe the Macromedia/Adobe hype. Of course they're gonna tell you that everyone has Flash.
I did my own checking on a busy non-biased (i.e. non-geeky) site a few years ago. I came up with around 73% market penetration. And this was BEFORE all the overlay Flash ads and pop-ups were so prevalent. For the record, MM was still claiming 97+% of users had it installed back then.
In all fairness, this was before Flash video had arrived with Youtube and Google Vids, etc.
I may be a little lost here, but if you're going to authenticate a client, why not use a client-side certificate? Is it too difficult to understand? Is the support in browsers/servers not there?
From my (limited) experience with this, it seems like it's a workable solution that would work on most browsers, no matter the OS, without a proprietary plug-in like Flash.
It's just like the rap game: where you're from always matters.
Effective immediately, my OSS support company will be keeping it real. "O.G. Suppizort" is located in the city of Compton.
That's not new math...
That's RIAA math!
Probably because most people have no concept of tables using percentages. Note the overwhelming number of sites that are constrained by a master table set to 800px width.
Granted, considering what that screenshot someone posted looked like, it may be next to impossible to accomplish that in tables and make it work right. But I would have given it a shot.
Quick generation check: what will happen with the screen if I'll type POKE 53280, 0 on a commodore-64? ;-)
:D
Who cares? Commies suck. Apples rule.
Keeping it real...80s style!
> I'd rather have the Superbird. The Charger was a bit of barely functional body kit.
Not quite. Actually, while the cars look almost identical, the Charger Daytona was slightly more aerodynamically "slippery." In fact, last time I heard, the Daytona still held a number of speed records for production cars. The Superbird, however, seems to be more visually appealing to most. Same engines available as well...except that the Superbird had the added 440/6BBL as an option.
> Unfortunately, NASCAR, yet again, buried their heads in their ass and banned wing cars. [...] And hence we have the technological backwater that is NASCAR.
Agreed. They, along with everyone else, have forgotten what the "SC" in "NASCAR" stands for. It's not worth watching. They have crippled the damn cars even more since 1971.
NBD *is* standard Linux kernel. It's built right in: /usr/src/linux-2.4/Documentation/nbd.txt
Ok. But does it work under Windows? That was one of the requirements.
Perhaps multiple files over different networking procotols (SMB for Windows machines, NFS for the Linux machines) mapped to built-in loopback devices (/dev/loX) accessed through built-in md utilizing software RAID5? Heh. It might not be pretty or fast, but it would probably work just fine. It may just give the kernel absolute fits though.
Anyone tried this?
There are a shitload of pages out there that are just like that. Some of them are even constrained to a width of 640 and it's horrible.
There are a lot of shitty webdesigners out there...
I understand. It just doesn't take much to get me on the soapbox regarding blocking users from sites...even if it is for a good reason. :)
Oh, one more thing I found out in extensive tests: the MS IE patches don't always work as advertised. If they did, it would be easy to say "if you get garbage on these pages, install SP1 for your browser." They appear to fix it somewhat, but not always. The "sometimes" bug still exists in 5.5 SP1 and 6.0 SP1...and that is why mod_gzip is disabled now.
Now that is beautiful. However, I run a couple of e-commerce sites from that server. Blocking potential customers via that module would be...bad. It's also crazy to block those potential customers that don't have certain plug-ins installed.
For example, my own tests have revealed that Flash is installed in 70% or less of browsers that frequent one of these sites. That's 30+% of your users that you'd be locking out! That's also quite a bit smaller than the 93% that I've seen Macromedia claim; I wonder why they would lie.
The article mentions that this will be of particular interest for web servers.
I'm assuming one is referring to something that will work with mod_gzip. That may be fine and dandy, but I just recently had to disable mod_gzip on my server. You can blame Microsoft.[1] It seems that both IE 5.5 and 6.0 have nasty little "sometimes" bugs[2] where they won't know what do with gzipped content. I tried to disable by user agent header with no luck. If anyone else has some good pointers or perhaps even a link to a patched version of mod_gzip that'll avoid those two bugs, I would apprieciate it.
[1] No, really. This isn't a troll. They even admit the bugs.
[2] Microsoft Knowledge Base Articles: Q313712 IE 5.5 Q312496 IE 6.0
I think the post page says it all:
(Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!)
Internet access on Mars? Hmmm...
buzzbomb@mars:~$ ping yahoo.com
PING yahoo.com (64.58.79.230): 56 octets data
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=757610.6 ms
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=757638.2 ms
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=757620.5 ms
--- yahoo.com ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 757610.6/757623.1/757638.2 ms
Well, it's faster than the actual implementation of RFC 1149.
In Windows 2000, you can manually edit the Registry to get rid of these keys. Unlike msconfig, there is no going back, so make sure you know what you're doing! Look in HKLM or HKCU under Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run. You should find the little bugger there. Delete it.
This works well in theory, but I've found that it gets re-enabled the next time Real is started. On an NT-based system (NT, 2000, XP) you'll need to remove "execute" permission to the eventsvc file...or just delete it. Real doesn't complain and still works fine.
Going along with the Spaceballs theme, would this be:
Mad Max 4: The Search for More Money?
The article is on gideontech.com. That's precisely what the link on the submitters nick is as well. I love it when people pimp their own shit and the editors post it. :/
I, for one, don't care about this stuff. I prefer to create my content using the computer as a tool...not as an integral part of my "art." If you get your rocks off cutting holes in computers and putting in neon lights, you need to get out of the house more. It was bad enough that people were doing this shit to cars, but now computers too? Pathetic.
Yes, I know I'm an asshole.
Why don't you tell him how you really feel?
:D
You have a "200MHz Pentium II" and are getting unexplained errors. Perhaps I missed something, but the first Pentium II was 233MHz.
Maybe the problem is that you don't know what you're doing.
Either that or I'm a half-drunk asshole. Either answer wouldn't surprise me.
So the Apache group has once again proven that they can deliver both a slow and insecure web server. How many more security holes will Apache have before it is "secure"? And when will Apache deliver truly high performance by having a non blocking I/O model?
When will you stop bitching and join the Apache devel team to help make it secure? When will you submit a non-blocking I/O patch to the Apache codebase?
If you don't like the direction they are going, either don't use it or join the devel team. There's no need to bitch and moan about it like it intimately affects your life.
Apache is NOT the fastest out there...but it is the most configurable (PHP, Perl, etc) and the best all-around webserver there is. Many of us think that the Apache team has done great work and we apprieciate every minute of it.
PHP support for Apache 2.0.x is still marked as expirimental. Until that's changed, I can't even think of upgrading.
Oooh...XHTML2 links must look like this:
;)
http://www/about/press_releases/?id=20020807
I guess I need Mozilla 2.0 to use it.