We call the Qwest exec board if a page dosen't get through to our techs in under a minuite on server outage, I got to sit in on one call, it was to put it lightly mildly amusing.
You ban my uagent string from making a passport account, even though I know spoffing it allows me to make it just fine.
You require a passport account to make purchases online. So did you just force every visa user to get a passport account, and thusly use windows?
I hate to say it, but if I ever can't make an online purchase because my uagent string is blocked by my credit card validation, I will probably talk to some higher-ups at my bank explaining how unacceptable this is.
Actually that wasn't a troll, the previous post stunk of one because you listed "whenever they release 1.0" when 1.0 has been released for quite some time.
You do have some valid points, but in defense I'd still have to say for being a 1.0 release, it's prety darn good.
I still blame the other problem on adobe though, but I can't imagine it will be too much longer for adobe to change the 1 line of code - recompile - and release a new version.
On the contrary, all you have to do is start a non-profit org (RIAA) to funnel the international funds (the majority of the RIAA members) to the senators who write the laws (DMCA) that control the american populus's rights.
Bugzilla Bug 35011
[DOM] window.onscroll and element.onscroll don't fire
Query page Enter new bug....
Status: VERIFIED Priority: -- P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Resolution: FIXED Severity: blocker critical major normal minor trivial enhancement
Bugzilla Bug 133567
M1RC3; Crash because Adobe SVG plugin used an unfrozen interface [@ nsLoadGroup::GetName] [@ nsHttpChannel::GetName] which changed its prototype
Query page Enter new bug
------- Additional Comment #46 From Christian Biesinger (not reading bugmail till July 22nd) 2002-05-28 03:57 -------
Gabriel, there's nothing moz can do about the crashing
the only thing it could maybe do is to refuse to load it...
------- Additional Comment #9 From Darin Fisher (out 'til July 22) 2002-03-27 16:00 -------
looks like this is an evangelism bug... Adobe should not have been using an unfrozen mozilla API.
-> evangelism
------- Additional Comment #47 From namachi@netscape.com 2002-05-30 16:52 -------
Since this crash depends on external company. I am marking it as topcrash-.
*** The first bug is fixed, the second bug dosen't even have anything to do with mozilla. Good choice in bugs. You also might want to update your troll, 1.0 has been released, and there won't be a 1.0.1 because they are making it 1.1a (I don't think the NS team believes in triplet numbering)
No, it's like a store that kicks the 1% out that wears fusia glasses, because they "might not be compatable with thier shelves", instead of allowing them to shop with a warning that they might have troubles (remember thier troubles can't disrupt other users or merchandise).
It dosen't take carefull work, it requires not using hacks to get stuff done.
You gain at minimum 3%, I'm sure that there is at least 2% that lies about thier UAGENT, let's see what the next months google statistics are before we start claiming it a lost cause though. Mozilla is finally (after 2 years of nothing) a competitor to IE.
I've never had a bank that was mine that didn't support mozilla, if I did I would go talk to a real live person the next day and ask why I couldn't use the website that I'm loaning them money/paying them intrest to use. I can bet it would be fixed by the end of the month (or I would close my account, with website incompatability as the reason, and be sure to let the bank manager know that I asked for this one simple thing, and he's loosing my account because they didn't meet my expicit [acceptable] needs).
It's a fairly simple relationship when it's your bank, you give them money, they make it easy for you to give them more money. If they go out of thier way to make it hard, you give your money to someone else.
Try usbank (formerly firstar) if your in the US, thier site works fine in all the browsers I use.
.net is best described as "a VM similar to java" that actually dosen't suck when used on x86 hardware running a process-centric os.
.net is reliant upon ms's own (really ugly, unfortunatly) c# and vb.net, but really a subset of any language can compile to.net code, I personally expect most development will be done in plain old c++.
.net uses SOAP heavily for 'click to program' client server and ActiveX/OLE/(insert buzword of the month for program interface exporting) relationships, when you use MS's IDEs. SOAP has nothing to do with.net though (except there are robust libraries if you want to use them), and the comercials showing a guy with a pda making huge changes to inventory databases with a pencil are fairly out there.
.net is fully specified, if MS dosen't release a non-compliant v1.1 the instant mono gets finished, all.net software ought (as in moral obligation) to work on any platform with a compliant VM. If it does not the code is broken.
I hope this helps, I do agree with you though, new MS technologies tend to be supported blindly by so many clueless lusers that it is often hard to figure out what it's all about until after its "old news".
I'm sorry, but harassing employees because of corperate decisions is never the correct thing to do. If you disagree with them, send your email through the normal email channels, and they will ticket/count your request/complaint as they do everyone elses. Abusing workers of a company only decreases employee moral and upsets a *real live person, who has a life outside of your gripe with the media company*. Not to mention your complaint will probably be ignored, and if your abusive enough you might end up with a policeman at your door tomorow morning.
Now, you're everyday stuff out there is not controlled by the content people. It's simply not. Its up to the user. I can write a text file and its just a text file. Likewise, I can code up a music player, code up a music recorder, and then play stuff with it. Likewise, I can take winamp and feed it anything I want.
In the words of Goku "Got you!"
nice troll, but unfortunatly you left your argument wide open here.
If it's possible to create an unsigned text file or media player (which I do personally doubt won't be that easy to do), then what is so hard about making an unsigned trojan?
Whats so hard about making an unsigned trojan that identifies as an obscure piece of shareware thats "trusted".
You see how that argument makes no sense?
Now please stop spaming everyone about MS's holyness. I have seen no reason to trust them so far, and this isn't helping my image of them. Once it comes out then we can see how it works, but until then backing up them taking total control over your machine for the "right to avoid being an idoit and running trojans" is not impressing anyone.
Unix solved this problem 40 years ago, without any special hardware. I don't see why MS needs full control over everthing on my machine when I'm *NOT RUNNING WINDOWS* in order for them to enforce this one tiny problem that they created for themselves in windows. And you claim "unauthorized scripts", I hate to break it to you, about 1/50th of my current job is developing VBA scrips to plug into excel, are those going to suddenly break unless I submit them to MS for code review? And if they are, do they sign a NDA before I do, or do they just steal my companies IP.
Not to mention the reason you cite is just a small drop in a large ocean of control that MS is forcing over every computer in america.
How do you know windows won't all of a sudden break 3000 boots after you buy it, until you buy a new version of windows / computer. Whats to stop MS?
With hardware enforced security, MS *could* use it to take complete control over your PC - allowing only MS tested and approved code. But that doesn't benefit them, and so, it won't ever happen.
I'm sorry, say that again?
Did you just say evil monopoly can force a greater monopoly through what is blatantly anti-competitive behavior (which they would probably get away with, as they are trying to weed out the "evil piracy"), but they won't because "it dosent benifit them". I hate to say it, but having a greater monoply is always an asset to someone whos primary selling point is "we have no competition".
How is the other solution, the one we have today less benifical to the consumer who owns the machine.
It's just like the Keven Shepard case. There are three rules to making the mass media when something tragic happens to you.
1: you (or a good portion of your pictures/footage) have to be attractive (this is required) 2: you have to be "normal", no extremist views for you 3: you have to identify as "that could be my kid/husband/me!" to a great majority of the add-buying populus.
the only way to avoid this is to kill like 30 people, but even then you will only get a few days coverage before your trial if you don't fit those rules.
You will also notice there will be only one contriversial issue covered in depth at a time, this is so everyone knows what to make idle chatter about the next day. If it makes good idle chatter they will continue running it until it gets old. Yes it's disturbing, but really how much do you *really* care about these cases anyway, unless they happen in your neighborhood.
And also, I happened notice how you specifically failed to mention the reasonable improvements made in recent versions of Windows - specifically how its around ~10% attack feasability compared to 100% with older versions.
So your saying when they ganked the FreeBSD network stack w/o even a tip of the hat, they improved thier non-existant security?
My ISP would call me if I started bursting in an irregular fassion (regular being downloading a few ISO's or serving 100 hits for an hour and then stoping), and I would have them set up a upstream block for me.
Your thinking they are out to screw me, these guys are just trying to be the best ISP possible for all the user types they can find, and they are compitent enough to pull it off.
When I got the letter telling me my cable downstream was getting cut 90% and my prices were increasing 20%, and they were blocking port 80, and my newsgroups downloads were being capped at 1gb/month, I was like "WTF, have they never heard of freaking bandwidth auditing, morons".
I have (buisness) DSL now, they audit my bandwidth, and if I use too much they charge me for it. It's defined clearly in my TOS. I can run a server if I want, though I'd proy get a call at 2am if I ran something and got it slashdoted. They make money, I spend money, I don't fear explaining my network setup to the Tech support people when thier dhcp server decides to break again (that happened about weekly on @HOME), and all in all it's the same cost as the (now) 'caped at a slower speed' cable connection.
Cable companies strike me as a internet bubble dream thats now living down the own nightmare of thier existance. @Home seemed to know what they were doing as an ISP (if they had only left excite alone...), but now it just feels like cable is being run by incompitent CIO's who are aspiring to be CEO's.
I can setup a BSD box and tweak it to what I want in under a minuite, as I have a magical CD that holds a shell script that makes all the changes for me. It took me 3 hours to develop.
Slashdot Mirror
We call the Qwest exec board if a page dosen't get through to our techs in under a minuite on server outage, I got to sit in on one call, it was to put it lightly mildly amusing.
You ban my uagent string from making a passport account, even though I know spoffing it allows me to make it just fine.
You require a passport account to make purchases online. So did you just force every visa user to get a passport account, and thusly use windows?
I hate to say it, but if I ever can't make an online purchase because my uagent string is blocked by my credit card validation, I will probably talk to some higher-ups at my bank explaining how unacceptable this is.
Actually that wasn't a troll, the previous post stunk of one because you listed "whenever they release 1.0" when 1.0 has been released for quite some time.
You do have some valid points, but in defense I'd still have to say for being a 1.0 release, it's prety darn good.
I still blame the other problem on adobe though, but I can't imagine it will be too much longer for adobe to change the 1 line of code - recompile - and release a new version.
On the contrary, all you have to do is start a non-profit org (RIAA) to funnel the international funds (the majority of the RIAA members) to the senators who write the laws (DMCA) that control the american populus's rights.
Good gvt system we have going, eh?
Bugzilla Bug 35011 ....
[DOM] window.onscroll and element.onscroll don't fire
Query page Enter new bug
Status: VERIFIED Priority: -- P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
Resolution: FIXED Severity: blocker critical major normal minor trivial enhancement
Bugzilla Bug 133567
M1RC3; Crash because Adobe SVG plugin used an unfrozen interface [@ nsLoadGroup::GetName] [@ nsHttpChannel::GetName] which changed its prototype
Query page Enter new bug
------- Additional Comment #46 From Christian Biesinger (not reading bugmail till July 22nd) 2002-05-28 03:57 -------
Gabriel, there's nothing moz can do about the crashing
the only thing it could maybe do is to refuse to load it...
------- Additional Comment #9 From Darin Fisher (out 'til July 22) 2002-03-27 16:00 -------
looks like this is an evangelism bug... Adobe should not have been using an
unfrozen mozilla API.
-> evangelism
------- Additional Comment #47 From namachi@netscape.com 2002-05-30 16:52 -------
Since this crash depends on external company. I am marking it as topcrash-.
***
The first bug is fixed, the second bug dosen't even have anything to do with mozilla. Good choice in bugs. You also might want to update your troll, 1.0 has been released, and there won't be a 1.0.1 because they are making it 1.1a (I don't think the NS team believes in triplet numbering)
No, it's like a store that kicks the 1% out that wears fusia glasses, because they "might not be compatable with thier shelves", instead of allowing them to shop with a warning that they might have troubles (remember thier troubles can't disrupt other users or merchandise).
It dosen't take carefull work, it requires not using hacks to get stuff done.
You gain at minimum 3%, I'm sure that there is at least 2% that lies about thier UAGENT, let's see what the next months google statistics are before we start claiming it a lost cause though. Mozilla is finally (after 2 years of nothing) a competitor to IE.
Some? I have yet to see CSS that breaks 1.1a that dosen't break IE.
I have seen alot of CSS that breaks IE that dosen't break mozilla.
Revise your argument, or show me CSS that breaks moz1.1 that dosen't break IE.
I've never had a bank that was mine that didn't support mozilla, if I did I would go talk to a real live person the next day and ask why I couldn't use the website that I'm loaning them money/paying them intrest to use. I can bet it would be fixed by the end of the month (or I would close my account, with website incompatability as the reason, and be sure to let the bank manager know that I asked for this one simple thing, and he's loosing my account because they didn't meet my expicit [acceptable] needs).
It's a fairly simple relationship when it's your bank, you give them money, they make it easy for you to give them more money. If they go out of thier way to make it hard, you give your money to someone else.
Try usbank (formerly firstar) if your in the US, thier site works fine in all the browsers I use.
Then they should use CSS for popup navigation on the left sidebar...
oh wait, IE dosen't support CSS well enough to do that, nevermind..
.net is best described as "a VM similar to java" that actually dosen't suck when used on x86 hardware running a process-centric os.
.net is reliant upon ms's own (really ugly, unfortunatly) c# and vb.net, but really a subset of any language can compile to .net code, I personally expect most development will be done in plain old c++.
.net uses SOAP heavily for 'click to program' client server and ActiveX/OLE/(insert buzword of the month for program interface exporting) relationships, when you use MS's IDEs. SOAP has nothing to do with .net though (except there are robust libraries if you want to use them), and the comercials showing a guy with a pda making huge changes to inventory databases with a pencil are fairly out there.
.net is fully specified, if MS dosen't release a non-compliant v1.1 the instant mono gets finished, all .net software ought (as in moral obligation) to work on any platform with a compliant VM. If it does not the code is broken.
I hope this helps, I do agree with you though, new MS technologies tend to be supported blindly by so many clueless lusers that it is often hard to figure out what it's all about until after its "old news".
I'd have to give that a big negative
The most convoluted
A pc running linux> emulates a mac > emulates a pc > runs Xfree > runs wine > runs xfree in wine > runs XMMS and plays a mp3.
Think about how long the pipe to the sound card is, your head will hurt.
I'm sorry, but harassing employees because of corperate decisions is never the correct thing to do. If you disagree with them, send your email through the normal email channels, and they will ticket/count your request/complaint as they do everyone elses. Abusing workers of a company only decreases employee moral and upsets a *real live person, who has a life outside of your gripe with the media company*. Not to mention your complaint will probably be ignored, and if your abusive enough you might end up with a policeman at your door tomorow morning.
Grow up.
Now, you're everyday stuff out there is not controlled by the content people. It's simply not. Its up to the user. I can write a text file and its just a text file. Likewise, I can code up a music player, code up a music recorder, and then play stuff with it. Likewise, I can take winamp and feed it anything I want.
In the words of Goku "Got you!"
nice troll, but unfortunatly you left your argument wide open here.
If it's possible to create an unsigned text file or media player (which I do personally doubt won't be that easy to do), then what is so hard about making an unsigned trojan?
Whats so hard about making an unsigned trojan that identifies as an obscure piece of shareware thats "trusted".
You see how that argument makes no sense?
Now please stop spaming everyone about MS's holyness. I have seen no reason to trust them so far, and this isn't helping my image of them. Once it comes out then we can see how it works, but until then backing up them taking total control over your machine for the "right to avoid being an idoit and running trojans" is not impressing anyone.
Unix solved this problem 40 years ago, without any special hardware. I don't see why MS needs full control over everthing on my machine when I'm *NOT RUNNING WINDOWS* in order for them to enforce this one tiny problem that they created for themselves in windows. And you claim "unauthorized scripts", I hate to break it to you, about 1/50th of my current job is developing VBA scrips to plug into excel, are those going to suddenly break unless I submit them to MS for code review? And if they are, do they sign a NDA before I do, or do they just steal my companies IP.
Not to mention the reason you cite is just a small drop in a large ocean of control that MS is forcing over every computer in america.
How do you know windows won't all of a sudden break 3000 boots after you buy it, until you buy a new version of windows / computer. Whats to stop MS?
With hardware enforced security, MS *could* use it to take complete control over your PC - allowing only MS tested and approved code. But that doesn't benefit them, and so, it won't ever happen.
I'm sorry, say that again?
Did you just say evil monopoly can force a greater monopoly through what is blatantly anti-competitive behavior (which they would probably get away with, as they are trying to weed out the "evil piracy"), but they won't because "it dosent benifit them". I hate to say it, but having a greater monoply is always an asset to someone whos primary selling point is "we have no competition".
How is the other solution, the one we have today less benifical to the consumer who owns the machine .
No, it will destroy itself in the form of the caps blowing up rather forcefully.
I don't expect family members or friends to support thier windows system now.
When anything breaks they call tech support. Whats so diffrent about it being on linux?
This point is so moot that I'm really starting to get sick of hearing it.
It's just like the Keven Shepard case. There are three rules to making the mass media when something tragic happens to you.
1: you (or a good portion of your pictures/footage) have to be attractive (this is required)
2: you have to be "normal", no extremist views for you
3: you have to identify as "that could be my kid/husband/me!" to a great majority of the add-buying populus.
the only way to avoid this is to kill like 30 people, but even then you will only get a few days coverage before your trial if you don't fit those rules.
You will also notice there will be only one contriversial issue covered in depth at a time, this is so everyone knows what to make idle chatter about the next day. If it makes good idle chatter they will continue running it until it gets old. Yes it's disturbing, but really how much do you *really* care about these cases anyway, unless they happen in your neighborhood.
you would become the world wide euphamism for hard task.
I don't believe there is an atmosphere to parachute from @ 35miles.
And also, I happened notice how you specifically failed to mention the reasonable improvements made in recent versions of Windows - specifically how its around ~10% attack feasability compared to 100% with older versions.
So your saying when they ganked the FreeBSD network stack w/o even a tip of the hat, they improved thier non-existant security?
Wow, who'da thunk.
My ISP would call me if I started bursting in an irregular fassion (regular being downloading a few ISO's or serving 100 hits for an hour and then stoping), and I would have them set up a upstream block for me.
Your thinking they are out to screw me, these guys are just trying to be the best ISP possible for all the user types they can find, and they are compitent enough to pull it off.
Yes, I agree completly.
When I got the letter telling me my cable downstream was getting cut 90% and my prices were increasing 20%, and they were blocking port 80, and my newsgroups downloads were being capped at 1gb/month, I was like "WTF, have they never heard of freaking bandwidth auditing, morons".
I have (buisness) DSL now, they audit my bandwidth, and if I use too much they charge me for it. It's defined clearly in my TOS. I can run a server if I want, though I'd proy get a call at 2am if I ran something and got it slashdoted. They make money, I spend money, I don't fear explaining my network setup to the Tech support people when thier dhcp server decides to break again (that happened about weekly on @HOME), and all in all it's the same cost as the (now) 'caped at a slower speed' cable connection.
Cable companies strike me as a internet bubble dream thats now living down the own nightmare of thier existance. @Home seemed to know what they were doing as an ISP (if they had only left excite alone...), but now it just feels like cable is being run by incompitent CIO's who are aspiring to be CEO's.
I can setup a BSD box and tweak it to what I want in under a minuite, as I have a magical CD that holds a shell script that makes all the changes for me. It took me 3 hours to develop.
How does it feel to be royally owned?