And blind people are lucky in one respect... they aren't forced to look at blog owners' pictures on every link they click. If I have to look at the face of that guy who coined the term "Ajax" once more, I might gouge out my own eyes.
I have a "private blog" set up for me and about 5 other college friends that we use to keep in touch (we are now very geographically disperse). I am the only one you could call "technically literate" by any means.
Earlier this year, I put a link to Firefox on that blog, and put up a quick post about how insecure IE was and why they should switch. But I just assumed they would read it, think "whatever Toby, you geek" and move on.
So the other day I was checking my web stats, and looked at those for that blog. ALL of them are now using Firefox (one has a Mac w/ Safari), with just one that uses IE sometimes.
Then when we got together a couple months back, one particularly non-tech-savvy friend was telling me how much she loved Firefox. She had several bad experiences with malware in the past and had to pay to get her computer fixed. She was just thrilled that ever since switching to Firefox, her security and malware problems are gone.
What's more, she told me she now recommends it to all her friends and family and has gotten several of them to switch. The only time she uses IE, ironically enough, is to get updates for her virus scanner, because its update site requires IE. She told me that "it just makes me nervous" whenever she has to open IE just to get updates, and asked me about what virus scanners don't require IE that I might recommend!
It's moments like that which make this geek proud. To have such a non-geek friend become proactive about her own security and educate herself on the dangers of using poorly-designed software and actively seeking alternatives is very encouraging that maybe "the masses" aren't the lemmings we assume they are sometimes.
Let this be a lesson to other geeks: your friends are willing to listen, if you take the time to explain to them why they should!
Dont forget... when mining ore on Mars for use in building additional facilities, always protect your ore harvester from attack since it is essentially defenseless.
If your ore harvester is destroyed, and you don't have the funds to build a new one, you must then sell existing buildings at only half the price you paid for them.
Or, if you have Engineers, they can enter and take over enemy buildings, but Engineers are even more defenseless than ore harvesters. And remember you should *never* have your Engineers run directly across ore fields since the ore is poisonous.
It also includes a list of "Company Contacts" on that page. Except... some of those names sound familiar for some reason.
Oh yeah, I remember now... their 1st Vice President, "Mr. Arthur Gendlin", wrote me recently about a WINNING NOTIFICATION in an INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY I never entered! And their Vice President "Mrs. Marina Adams" is the widow of some billionaire heir to the throne of an African country I'd never heard of!
This company must be legit; they certainly have some wealthy members on their board!
It doesn't matter how long the list of "supported" browsers is. What they're trying to accomplish isn't exactly a design-intensive web app. It's a simple way to submit, read, and organize information.
If they write the website using standards, their list of "supported" browsers could be "all standards-compliant browsers".
Yes, I understand that any website must be tested with whatever the more popular browsers of the day are. But they aren't doing anyone a favor by listing these browsers they happen to test against as the only "supported" browsers. There's a big difference in terminology there.
If it validates as proper (X)?HTML and CSS, and preferably accessibility guidelines as well, then they wouldn't have to publish such a list. It makes those who use a browser not in the list, or those who must use accessibility devices such as screen readers, feel like second class citizens.
One of the best CSS articles I've found is at Westciv... they take the uncommon yet intuitive approach of fully describing selectors first -- what they are, how to use them, etc. -- before they go into properties at all.
For me, the most frustrating aspect of designing CSS-based sites isn't applying the properties I want, it's figuring out how to select the elements I want. This site explains it all very clearly.
Although homeplug is known to notch all the ham bands fairly well, it's still disturbing to many other HF spectrum users, such as SW listeners. MV lines are simply not designed to carry RF. Another issue...packet sniffing anyone?
Sorry man, I can't tell WTF you're talking about. Maybe some more acronyms would help.
The money would add up to $25-30 million. That may not seem like a lot of cash to you, but I'd still get out of bed for it.
I'm not saying it's not a lot of money. I'm saying that isn't the reason Google uses Linux. I'm sure they're just pleased as punch that it also saves them a bunch of money, but if the tables were turned and they could have saved $30M by using a bloated, inefficient, closed OS, they still would have gone with Linux.
Here's some facts for you: broadband usage in the U.S. has more than tripled since 2001, and it was projected (in fall 2004) that by the end of that year, 43% of U.S. households would have broadband, according to the FCC and research group IDC (sorry, there aren't any more recent stats).
While the U.S. is ranked only 11th worldwide in penetration rates per capita, this is due to the fact that many of the countries ahead of us have urban areas with much higher population densities.
If the government in the U.S. subsidized broadband here the way they do in Korea, Hong Kong, Canada, etc., all the Bush-bashers would be complaining about how we're wasting money on technology instead of feeding the poor, cleaning up the environment, etc. etc. etc.
It has recently come to my attention that you are using some vague and obscure patents in an attempt to blackmail legitimate, innovative businesses for large sums of undeserved money.
Unfortunately for you, I hold a patent on this business model and take any infringement on my intellectual property very seriously. However, I will allow you to purchase a "make money by being a litigious weasel" license for $2M which will allow you to pursue your current course of action. Otherwise, you will be sued for patent-infringement patent infringement.
I am not stating any opinions for or against space-based weapons for any country. I am stating that a mock interview full of leading, softball questions doesn't further any debate.
I have the same opinion towards any website, whether or not I agree with its stance, that tries to push its propaganda off as objective reporting. An objective reporter or organization would have also asked questions that chellenged the "interviewee" rather than simply giving him jumping-off points to launch into his platform.
An objective organization would never ask a question such as "what would be a smarter alternative?". That is called a "leading" question because rather than try to probe the person being interviewed, it already presupposes a given response.
I suggest you look up the definition of "fact". An opinion you agree with is still an opinion. The word "fact" refers to something that can be proven. It has nothing to do with truth.
This is just a bunch of thinly-veiled liberal propaganda. I don't mind reading the viewpoints of others, but please don't insult my intelligence by posing it as some sort of "interview", under the pretense of an objective question-and-answer session.
Please... questions like "Are these steps necessary to protect the country?" and "What is a smarter alternative?" lead me to believe that maybe this "interview" is a bit slanted. Especially when the home page of this "ForeignPolicy.com" lists it as published by the "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace."
Who cares about the 10th anniversary of a mediocre file format; just think: somewhere out there is a person who wakes up each morning and thinks to himself, "I wonder what news I'll find on the Data Compression News Blog today?"
You say you're looking for a firewall under $100? I don't understand this concept you speak of -- paying for software as vital as a firewall!
Seriously though, check out Firewall Builder at http://www.fwbuilder.org/. It looks like they now even have Win32 builds, although I would agree with others that the best approach is a separate, dedicated, Linux or FreeBSD box.
Firewall Builder isn't a firewall itself. It is simply a GUI tool to help you create firewall policy by defining objects which represent networks, hosts, policies, NAT rules, services, etc. Then you plug in a policy compiler for the platform you're targeting -- iptables, pf, etc.
I have used it for years and it works like a charm.
Anyone know if there's a death penalty in Australia?
Please list suitable tortures for spammers.
Have you people heard of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"? It says an alleged Australian spammer. Let's make sure he really is Australian before we start jumping to conclusions.
The thing advertisers don't seem to get is that you don't sell products by annoying the hell out of people.
Very well put. I resisted using Adblock for a long time -- really, I did. The sites I visit tend to not have a ton of annoying ads.
Then those damn Jamster flash ads started showing up everywhere with that fucking bouncing frog or whatever it is. It was more than I could take. I couldn't read an article without my eyes being drawn toward that thing.
I'm sure the Jamster folks would like to believe that I "gave in", clicked on the link, and bought some kewl ring tones from them. Instead, I installed Adblock and my problems went away. Now all internet advertisers are losing out because of the poor practices of a few.
Thanks Stephen for the clarification, I really didn't think it was you who wrote the front page headline, which is why I directed that comment at C|Net in general and not you specifically. I agree that the story itself (and the headline you did write) are good coverage, but the original front-page headline and summary were, if not FUD, then at least sensationalistic.
Slashdot Mirror
And blind people are lucky in one respect... they aren't forced to look at blog owners' pictures on every link they click. If I have to look at the face of that guy who coined the term "Ajax" once more, I might gouge out my own eyes.
The hell with that. The environment owes me $3000.
I can't believe these two are actually authors and former Congressmen:
Why the comma after "Google"? You don't separate a subject from its verb with a comma.
This is a run-on sentence. You can't join two independent clauses with a comma.
User's what? In English, we pluralize "user" by simply adding an s. That's not what apostrophes are for.
If this were a high school English composition, it would get a C- at best. Doesn't the Washington Times have editors?
I have a "private blog" set up for me and about 5 other college friends that we use to keep in touch (we are now very geographically disperse). I am the only one you could call "technically literate" by any means.
Earlier this year, I put a link to Firefox on that blog, and put up a quick post about how insecure IE was and why they should switch. But I just assumed they would read it, think "whatever Toby, you geek" and move on.
So the other day I was checking my web stats, and looked at those for that blog. ALL of them are now using Firefox (one has a Mac w/ Safari), with just one that uses IE sometimes.
Then when we got together a couple months back, one particularly non-tech-savvy friend was telling me how much she loved Firefox. She had several bad experiences with malware in the past and had to pay to get her computer fixed. She was just thrilled that ever since switching to Firefox, her security and malware problems are gone.
What's more, she told me she now recommends it to all her friends and family and has gotten several of them to switch. The only time she uses IE, ironically enough, is to get updates for her virus scanner, because its update site requires IE. She told me that "it just makes me nervous" whenever she has to open IE just to get updates, and asked me about what virus scanners don't require IE that I might recommend!
It's moments like that which make this geek proud. To have such a non-geek friend become proactive about her own security and educate herself on the dangers of using poorly-designed software and actively seeking alternatives is very encouraging that maybe "the masses" aren't the lemmings we assume they are sometimes.
Let this be a lesson to other geeks: your friends are willing to listen, if you take the time to explain to them why they should!
Dont forget... when mining ore on Mars for use in building additional facilities, always protect your ore harvester from attack since it is essentially defenseless.
If your ore harvester is destroyed, and you don't have the funds to build a new one, you must then sell existing buildings at only half the price you paid for them.
Or, if you have Engineers, they can enter and take over enemy buildings, but Engineers are even more defenseless than ore harvesters. And remember you should *never* have your Engineers run directly across ore fields since the ore is poisonous.
It also includes a list of "Company Contacts" on that page. Except... some of those names sound familiar for some reason.
Oh yeah, I remember now... their 1st Vice President, "Mr. Arthur Gendlin", wrote me recently about a WINNING NOTIFICATION in an INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY I never entered! And their Vice President "Mrs. Marina Adams" is the widow of some billionaire heir to the throne of an African country I'd never heard of!
This company must be legit; they certainly have some wealthy members on their board!
It doesn't matter how long the list of "supported" browsers is. What they're trying to accomplish isn't exactly a design-intensive web app. It's a simple way to submit, read, and organize information.
If they write the website using standards, their list of "supported" browsers could be "all standards-compliant browsers".
Yes, I understand that any website must be tested with whatever the more popular browsers of the day are. But they aren't doing anyone a favor by listing these browsers they happen to test against as the only "supported" browsers. There's a big difference in terminology there.
If it validates as proper (X)?HTML and CSS, and preferably accessibility guidelines as well, then they wouldn't have to publish such a list. It makes those who use a browser not in the list, or those who must use accessibility devices such as screen readers, feel like second class citizens.
One of the best CSS articles I've found is at Westciv... they take the uncommon yet intuitive approach of fully describing selectors first -- what they are, how to use them, etc. -- before they go into properties at all.
u torial/
For me, the most frustrating aspect of designing CSS-based sites isn't applying the properties I want, it's figuring out how to select the elements I want. This site explains it all very clearly.
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/academy/css_t
Although homeplug is known to notch all the ham bands fairly well, it's still disturbing to many other HF spectrum users, such as SW listeners. MV lines are simply not designed to carry RF. Another issue...packet sniffing anyone?
Sorry man, I can't tell WTF you're talking about. Maybe some more acronyms would help.Sorry, you're right... that's not really a nitpick, I shoulda double-checked that one!
The money would add up to $25-30 million. That may not seem like a lot of cash to you, but I'd still get out of bed for it.
I'm not saying it's not a lot of money. I'm saying that isn't the reason Google uses Linux. I'm sure they're just pleased as punch that it also saves them a bunch of money, but if the tables were turned and they could have saved $30M by using a bloated, inefficient, closed OS, they still would have gone with Linux.
Here's some facts for you: broadband usage in the U.S. has more than tripled since 2001, and it was projected (in fall 2004) that by the end of that year, 43% of U.S. households would have broadband, according to the FCC and research group IDC (sorry, there aren't any more recent stats).
While the U.S. is ranked only 11th worldwide in penetration rates per capita, this is due to the fact that many of the countries ahead of us have urban areas with much higher population densities.
If the government in the U.S. subsidized broadband here the way they do in Korea, Hong Kong, Canada, etc., all the Bush-bashers would be complaining about how we're wasting money on technology instead of feeding the poor, cleaning up the environment, etc. etc. etc.
Well I bet Ping is gonna be pissed that his country is spending that much on a satellite that's so slow for him.
$300 * oodles = a drop in the ocean at Google. It's not about the money.
...that would be SC0, not SCO.
Dear Epicrealm,
It has recently come to my attention that you are using some vague and obscure patents in an attempt to blackmail legitimate, innovative businesses for large sums of undeserved money.
Unfortunately for you, I hold a patent on this business model and take any infringement on my intellectual property very seriously. However, I will allow you to purchase a "make money by being a litigious weasel" license for $2M which will allow you to pursue your current course of action. Otherwise, you will be sued for patent-infringement patent infringement.
Sincerely,
Darl McBride
I am not stating any opinions for or against space-based weapons for any country. I am stating that a mock interview full of leading, softball questions doesn't further any debate.
I have the same opinion towards any website, whether or not I agree with its stance, that tries to push its propaganda off as objective reporting. An objective reporter or organization would have also asked questions that chellenged the "interviewee" rather than simply giving him jumping-off points to launch into his platform.
An objective organization would never ask a question such as "what would be a smarter alternative?". That is called a "leading" question because rather than try to probe the person being interviewed, it already presupposes a given response.
I suggest you look up the definition of "fact". An opinion you agree with is still an opinion. The word "fact" refers to something that can be proven. It has nothing to do with truth.
This is just a bunch of thinly-veiled liberal propaganda. I don't mind reading the viewpoints of others, but please don't insult my intelligence by posing it as some sort of "interview", under the pretense of an objective question-and-answer session.
Please... questions like "Are these steps necessary to protect the country?" and "What is a smarter alternative?" lead me to believe that maybe this "interview" is a bit slanted. Especially when the home page of this "ForeignPolicy.com" lists it as published by the "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace."
Who cares about the 10th anniversary of a mediocre file format; just think: somewhere out there is a person who wakes up each morning and thinks to himself, "I wonder what news I'll find on the Data Compression News Blog today?"
Guess I'm not as much of a geek as I thought...
You say you're looking for a firewall under $100? I don't understand this concept you speak of -- paying for software as vital as a firewall!
Seriously though, check out Firewall Builder at http://www.fwbuilder.org/. It looks like they now even have Win32 builds, although I would agree with others that the best approach is a separate, dedicated, Linux or FreeBSD box.
Firewall Builder isn't a firewall itself. It is simply a GUI tool to help you create firewall policy by defining objects which represent networks, hosts, policies, NAT rules, services, etc. Then you plug in a policy compiler for the platform you're targeting -- iptables, pf, etc.
I have used it for years and it works like a charm.
Have you people heard of the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"? It says an alleged Australian spammer. Let's make sure he really is Australian before we start jumping to conclusions.
The article is more about trying to log into Red Hat without a password ( BTW is it really that easy?).
Yes, it is. If someone has physical access to your machine, it's not your machine. Doesn't matter whether it's running Linux, Windows, whatever.
...that a portable computer called the "Linus" ran MS-DOS!
Very well put. I resisted using Adblock for a long time -- really, I did. The sites I visit tend to not have a ton of annoying ads.
Then those damn Jamster flash ads started showing up everywhere with that fucking bouncing frog or whatever it is. It was more than I could take. I couldn't read an article without my eyes being drawn toward that thing.
I'm sure the Jamster folks would like to believe that I "gave in", clicked on the link, and bought some kewl ring tones from them. Instead, I installed Adblock and my problems went away. Now all internet advertisers are losing out because of the poor practices of a few.
Thanks Stephen for the clarification, I really didn't think it was you who wrote the front page headline, which is why I directed that comment at C|Net in general and not you specifically. I agree that the story itself (and the headline you did write) are good coverage, but the original front-page headline and summary were, if not FUD, then at least sensationalistic.