"links -> clickable URLs bold -> *bold* italic ->/italic/ underline -> _underline_ paragraphs -> \n\n quoted text -> > size - learn to use your email client's preferences, dumbass"
I have never seen a program actually render these as you say. But yes, I use them quite frequently. As for text size, I suppose my email client is supposed to randomly guess which parts I want bigger or smaller than which other parts...
(And again, I could turn that around and say "let's use these tags for webpages instead of B, I, etc.")
"You do realise that Outlook takes "G'day Zontar" (12 bytes) and turns it into about 800 bytes, don't you?"
That seems like an Outlook problem, not an HTML mail problem. Though a quick test with Mozilla puts the total size at 933 bytes, so I dunno. But I don't know of a reason that simply adding a HTML, BODY, and PAR tag around it wouldn't work, and that's only 17 bytes more.
"And it doesn't matter how it gets filtered on my end, the problem is that *I still have to download it and I don't want to*."
Maybe that could be an improvement on the POP protocol (if it doesn't already exist); only download the non-HTML version of messages by default.
"Read my lips: Bandwidth. Is. Not. Free. And. I. Do. Not. Want. To. Have. To. Download. Your. Excess. Crap. Like. HTML. Tags. And. Embedded. Images/Scripts/Plugins/Etc. !!!."
And I would have been quite happy without downloading the 18 or so extra bytes taken up by periods there...;-)
But seriously, again, a "download only plaintext" command for POP servers could be nice. That would solve the problem as it directly relates to you, unless of course you run your own POP server. As for images, the suggestions I've seen for how to include them have been by attachments, so you won't really get around that at all even if HTML mail completely ceases to be. I'm pretty sure images that are loaded off the web can be supressed in essentially every email client with a HTML viewer, so if anything you're making a savings here.
"In addition, simply getting rid of all HTML email would enhance the Internet's security and privacy quotient by about 75%. No more Web beacons. No more little ActiveX horrors hiding in OBJECT tags. No more scripts trying to remote-load Trojans into invisible IFRAMEs."
That would be nice, but I'd question the benefit to you in this area if HTML mail disappeared. You'd probably get less virus-laden emails, but at least judging from the content of my inbox and what I get as spam, viruses are overshadowed by advertisements. I don't think the latter would decrease any, though they *might* be able to filter a bit easier.
The poster at the root of this thread linked to a page describing the evils of HTML mail. The author complianed about this very problem, and said that he maintains the spammer's compendium or something similar in which he gives many of the tricks that spammers use to thwart filters. He claimed that 80% wouldn't exist without HTML mail. I went through the list, and I put it at about 60%. I divided the techniques into three categories, which turned out to be almost equal. About 1/3 were, as far as I could tell, not at all related to HTML. Another third were, but the techniques could be thwarted by doing nothing more than what I suggested above: strip the HTML tags (and convert > stuff to >). The remainder are caused by HTML and would not be fixed by the above method, though possibly by some other method. All in the last category are "rare".
I wouldn't need to get her to swear under oath specifically; she'd invoke her 5th amendment rights probably. However, there's also the photographer (I'm assume she didn't use the self timer here) and person who did the manipulation if any was done (again, I'm assuming the photos are done well enough that you'd probably have to be rather experienced to create them). Finding out who these people are could take some work, but a decent detective would have a fair chance at getting names). They can be compelled to testify as to the origins to the photos since they did nothing illegal and thus can't incriminate themselves.
I wouldn't even need to be able to get a sworn statement. Demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the photos were not doctored would be enough, and I think that if they are well done that wouldn't be much of a problem.
I also don't think that anyone would swear that they were not an accurate representation. If in fact they were, this would be a statement of perjury which is an offense probably much more severe than the original. I will concede that proving perjury would be nearly impossible, but I still don't think even the defendant would committ it in this case.
"Remember OJ Simpson? We were all pretty sure he was guilty as sin, but the defense injected enough doubt in the case that "beyond reasonable doubt" could not be attained to convict by the jury."
OJ is one of those cases where there was a reasonably clear verdict the jury did not reach; the decision was the exception rather than the rule.
"BTW, this is for California, and IANAL."
Rules of evidence are essentially uniform, so being in CA shouldn't make a difference. IANAL either.
Is there a Supreme Court prescedent for this? I didn't realize that the protections extended to not naming witnesses.
Still, I think there's a fair chance that I could determine the name through other means. (See if I can get her to name "typical photographers" she uses, email her separately posing as someone who is interested in hiring the person, etc.)
She didn't argue this. I would consider it "reasonable" that she would provide this defense if indeed the pictures were faked unless she was being very stubborn about not giving testamony and invoking 5th amendment rights at most questions. Even so, there's probably at least the photographer who could testify if the photos were taken, and he or she can be compelled to testify, and I think I'd be able to make her give the name of the photographer if I were prosecuting.
"Ruling out as many of these doubts as she could have raised would require spending some real money on forensics tests to see if the photos showed evidence of tampering. Evidently, she chose to pay the fines rather than contest it, or this would be ballooning into a major case by now."
Or decided to not commit perjury. I think even you'd agree that, even if its not to the point of conviction standards, the photos are *probably* real. In addition, the website probably gives dates for when they were posted, which would more than likely be not long after they were taken. Thus I'd argue that chances are good that taking any of these routes would require false testamony.
"She could have taken the photos which is perfectly legal and then added herself, which is also perfectly legal. Prove she didn't."
That would be difficult, but I think I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd also be sure that anyone who would know would testify under oath that the pictures were doctored. (Her, the photographer if there is one besides the self timer, and the person who did the doctoring.)
However, she didn't even argue that they were faked.
"The authorities were not in posession of the camera."
The authorities are not in possession of cameras that are used in bank robberies, convienience store robberies, etc. either. Yet if there's a clear picture those are sometimes enough to pretty much ensure a conviction.
"Couldn't the pics just be doctored / enhanced? Doesn't there have to be an uninterrupted chain of posession of the evidence, to prove that it wasn't corrupted / tampered?"
If I were the prosecutor for this trial I'd have you try to demonstrate your Photoshop abilities if you went that route. Say "if the shots were doctored, who doctored them?" Then get that person to come in and testify that they doctored those photos and demonstrate a similar task. Good people can do amazing things with Photoshop, but it still often can be distinguished from the real thing, and my aim would be to show that the photos were probably not doctored.
"I suspect a decent a attorney could slam dunk this one."
Not if the prosecutor was a decent attorney. I'm not saying it'd be a sure conviction, but it certainly wouldn't be a slam dunk.
No... you're allowed to *not* incriminate yourself. There's a big difference.
I agree this is a no brainer; it's no difference than using security camera shots in a trial, or indeed any evidence left behind.
If I make a public comment that I did something, it can be used against me. There's some issue with not being informed of Miranda rights or having those rights not honored, but in general that's the case. If I talk to a newspaper reporter and say that I committed some crime, the police can come get me on that evidence. It may not be enough to convict because I could say I'm lying, but it'd probably go a long way.
"What's wrong with just sending the URL? There's no need to add the HTML. It's not as though it's impossible for a MUA to recognise a URL and to allow you to click on it."
First, Opera 7 is the first email reader I've used with that ability. (Out of Evolution, Mozilla Mail, and a couple others.)
Second, I can turn that around and say "what's wrong with just putting the url into the webpage"? The answer is that sometimes (like the example in the root of this thread) it's nice to put a link in with the text different from the URL.
Third, what about other HTML tags? Bold, italic, size, etc.? They are useful in mail as well. Links are just one example.
"Its twats like you who fuck up the Internet for everyone else."
Thank you, thank you very much.
Seriously, what's stopping you from ignoring HTML mail then? It should be even easier for a mail reader to strip HTML tags then it would be to recognize a URL. You could then view HTML mail as plain text with tags, plain text without tags, or rich HTML. Voila, you have removed a large portion of the drawbacks of HTML mail without forcing people to your view.
Oh yes, and of course email couldn't *possibly* have any use for hyperlinks.
With all due respect, I like my HTML mail. Why? For the same reason that I like HTML websites, or real word processing software over Notepad, or PDF files instead of plaintext.
Numbers are about 90% vs. 75% according to another post in this thread, so DVD-R will work on a good 20% more players than DVD+R.
Read more about the space program...
on
Shuttle Fleet Upgraded
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea."
They had heaters *in* the oxygen tanks at least on the Apollo missions. Such a heater was in part responsible for the Apollo 13 near-disaster, though that was caused by a whose string of failures.
But that doesn't mean that you want to sit back and wait. Even if they wouldn't be able to prove it, if we can speed their demise by actively showing that the lot of them are insane, so much the better.
As tjb said, there's nothing preventing you from using a "weird" sized word. I could give you a VHDL model of a simplified version of a MIPS from a computer archetecture class that I can modify to use, say, 37 bit words if you don't oUeve me.
If you're referring to the movie adaption, watch it again. He threw it into the fire while it was still in the envelope, and retrieved it with tongs. I don't think at any point he touched it.
I don't remember the book's version, and don't have a copy here in my dorm.
But anyway, the point is that it wasn't just a brief touch that would corrupt him. It's like if someone says "don't touch this" then you jokingly touch it for a second. Had he taken it for any length of time he would have been corrupted.
*ROTK SPOILER* Even Frodo was corrupted, remember...
"The Wright brothers were the first in the USA, but definately not the first in the world. Infact quite a few people flew before Richard Pearce but none of these events were recorded."
No one had what IMO should be considered the first true "flight" before the Wrights. That is an unassisted takeoff, a flight with 3 axes of control, and a landing. Others had various parts of this, the most popular being an unassisted takeoff, flight with less than 3 axes of control, and a landing, but the Wrights were the first to combine all of them.
"All the so called "moon walks" could also be said to be dubious as we, ordinary individuals, have no proof at all that man acutally walked on the moon in the was it is shown on television. We have taken their word to be fact... like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Don't get me started here. If you discount those, then you have to be skeptical of the videos of manned flight in general, the photos taken of the earth from NEO, the fact that President Bush went to Iraq on Thanksgiving, the fact that we have troops in Iraq at all, that Tony Blair is PM of England, yadda yadda yadda.
"For instance, some have suggested that the definition should be a controlled take-off, flight path, and landing completely under the airplane's power (including no catapult assisted take-off). That definition would probably put the Wright Brothers back as "first", but it certainly wasn't the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight, it would be sometime later."
Why wouldn't 1903 count? The only thing that I could think of would be the catapult, because this is a common misconception. The 1903 flight did *NOT* use a catapult in any way, shape, or form. The best argument you could make is that it required a rather strong headwind.
No, wrong. True, it has elevons which combine alerons and the elevator, but it still has control of all three axes. It's just that one system handles two axes. The Wrights were the first to have systems for all three axes.
Again, this isn't PPT's fault. PPT is a good presentation tool when used properly (which is admittedly too infrequently). It does what it tries to do, IMO better than transparencies, slides, or just about anything else. If you're giving a presentation, PPT will do the trick for most things if you use it right.
Slashdot Mirror
"links -> clickable URLs /italic/
;-)
bold -> *bold*
italic ->
underline -> _underline_
paragraphs -> \n\n
quoted text -> >
size - learn to use your email client's preferences, dumbass"
I have never seen a program actually render these as you say. But yes, I use them quite frequently. As for text size, I suppose my email client is supposed to randomly guess which parts I want bigger or smaller than which other parts...
(And again, I could turn that around and say "let's use these tags for webpages instead of B, I, etc.")
"You do realise that Outlook takes "G'day Zontar" (12 bytes) and turns it into about 800 bytes, don't you?"
That seems like an Outlook problem, not an HTML mail problem. Though a quick test with Mozilla puts the total size at 933 bytes, so I dunno. But I don't know of a reason that simply adding a HTML, BODY, and PAR tag around it wouldn't work, and that's only 17 bytes more.
"And it doesn't matter how it gets filtered on my end, the problem is that *I still have to download it and I don't want to*."
Maybe that could be an improvement on the POP protocol (if it doesn't already exist); only download the non-HTML version of messages by default.
"Read my lips: Bandwidth. Is. Not. Free. And. I. Do. Not. Want. To. Have. To. Download. Your. Excess. Crap. Like. HTML. Tags. And. Embedded. Images/Scripts/Plugins/Etc. !!!."
And I would have been quite happy without downloading the 18 or so extra bytes taken up by periods there...
But seriously, again, a "download only plaintext" command for POP servers could be nice. That would solve the problem as it directly relates to you, unless of course you run your own POP server. As for images, the suggestions I've seen for how to include them have been by attachments, so you won't really get around that at all even if HTML mail completely ceases to be. I'm pretty sure images that are loaded off the web can be supressed in essentially every email client with a HTML viewer, so if anything you're making a savings here.
"In addition, simply getting rid of all HTML email would enhance the Internet's security and privacy quotient by about 75%. No more Web beacons. No more little ActiveX horrors hiding in OBJECT tags. No more scripts trying to remote-load Trojans into invisible IFRAMEs."
That would be nice, but I'd question the benefit to you in this area if HTML mail disappeared. You'd probably get less virus-laden emails, but at least judging from the content of my inbox and what I get as spam, viruses are overshadowed by advertisements. I don't think the latter would decrease any, though they *might* be able to filter a bit easier.
The poster at the root of this thread linked to a page describing the evils of HTML mail. The author complianed about this very problem, and said that he maintains the spammer's compendium or something similar in which he gives many of the tricks that spammers use to thwart filters. He claimed that 80% wouldn't exist without HTML mail. I went through the list, and I put it at about 60%. I divided the techniques into three categories, which turned out to be almost equal. About 1/3 were, as far as I could tell, not at all related to HTML. Another third were, but the techniques could be thwarted by doing nothing more than what I suggested above: strip the HTML tags (and convert > stuff to >). The remainder are caused by HTML and would not be fixed by the above method, though possibly by some other method. All in the last category are "rare".
"Good luck getting her to swear this under oath."
I wouldn't need to get her to swear under oath specifically; she'd invoke her 5th amendment rights probably. However, there's also the photographer (I'm assume she didn't use the self timer here) and person who did the manipulation if any was done (again, I'm assuming the photos are done well enough that you'd probably have to be rather experienced to create them). Finding out who these people are could take some work, but a decent detective would have a fair chance at getting names). They can be compelled to testify as to the origins to the photos since they did nothing illegal and thus can't incriminate themselves.
I wouldn't even need to be able to get a sworn statement. Demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the photos were not doctored would be enough, and I think that if they are well done that wouldn't be much of a problem.
I also don't think that anyone would swear that they were not an accurate representation. If in fact they were, this would be a statement of perjury which is an offense probably much more severe than the original. I will concede that proving perjury would be nearly impossible, but I still don't think even the defendant would committ it in this case.
"Remember OJ Simpson? We were all pretty sure he was guilty as sin, but the defense injected enough doubt in the case that "beyond reasonable doubt" could not be attained to convict by the jury."
OJ is one of those cases where there was a reasonably clear verdict the jury did not reach; the decision was the exception rather than the rule.
"BTW, this is for California, and IANAL."
Rules of evidence are essentially uniform, so being in CA shouldn't make a difference. IANAL either.
Is there a Supreme Court prescedent for this? I didn't realize that the protections extended to not naming witnesses.
Still, I think there's a fair chance that I could determine the name through other means. (See if I can get her to name "typical photographers" she uses, email her separately posing as someone who is interested in hiring the person, etc.)
She didn't argue this. I would consider it "reasonable" that she would provide this defense if indeed the pictures were faked unless she was being very stubborn about not giving testamony and invoking 5th amendment rights at most questions. Even so, there's probably at least the photographer who could testify if the photos were taken, and he or she can be compelled to testify, and I think I'd be able to make her give the name of the photographer if I were prosecuting.
"Ruling out as many of these doubts as she could have raised would require spending some real money on forensics tests to see if the photos showed evidence of tampering. Evidently, she chose to pay the fines rather than contest it, or this would be ballooning into a major case by now."
Or decided to not commit perjury. I think even you'd agree that, even if its not to the point of conviction standards, the photos are *probably* real. In addition, the website probably gives dates for when they were posted, which would more than likely be not long after they were taken. Thus I'd argue that chances are good that taking any of these routes would require false testamony.
"Having not seen the pictures I don't know if there were in fact witnesses. They can be compelled to testify."
I would suspect there was at least the photographer.
"She could have taken the photos which is perfectly legal and then added herself, which is also perfectly legal. Prove she didn't."
That would be difficult, but I think I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd also be sure that anyone who would know would testify under oath that the pictures were doctored. (Her, the photographer if there is one besides the self timer, and the person who did the doctoring.)
However, she didn't even argue that they were faked.
"The authorities were not in posession of the camera."
The authorities are not in possession of cameras that are used in bank robberies, convienience store robberies, etc. either. Yet if there's a clear picture those are sometimes enough to pretty much ensure a conviction.
"Couldn't the pics just be doctored / enhanced? Doesn't there have to be an uninterrupted chain of posession of the evidence, to prove that it wasn't corrupted / tampered?"
If I were the prosecutor for this trial I'd have you try to demonstrate your Photoshop abilities if you went that route. Say "if the shots were doctored, who doctored them?" Then get that person to come in and testify that they doctored those photos and demonstrate a similar task. Good people can do amazing things with Photoshop, but it still often can be distinguished from the real thing, and my aim would be to show that the photos were probably not doctored.
"I suspect a decent a attorney could slam dunk this one."
Not if the prosecutor was a decent attorney. I'm not saying it'd be a sure conviction, but it certainly wouldn't be a slam dunk.
The state doesn't have cameras inside stop and go stores, banks, restraunts, etc. either.
No... you're allowed to *not* incriminate yourself. There's a big difference.
I agree this is a no brainer; it's no difference than using security camera shots in a trial, or indeed any evidence left behind.
If I make a public comment that I did something, it can be used against me. There's some issue with not being informed of Miranda rights or having those rights not honored, but in general that's the case. If I talk to a newspaper reporter and say that I committed some crime, the police can come get me on that evidence. It may not be enough to convict because I could say I'm lying, but it'd probably go a long way.
"What's wrong with just sending the URL? There's no need to add the HTML. It's not as though it's impossible for a MUA to recognise a URL and to allow you to click on it."
First, Opera 7 is the first email reader I've used with that ability. (Out of Evolution, Mozilla Mail, and a couple others.)
Second, I can turn that around and say "what's wrong with just putting the url into the webpage"? The answer is that sometimes (like the example in the root of this thread) it's nice to put a link in with the text different from the URL.
Third, what about other HTML tags? Bold, italic, size, etc.? They are useful in mail as well. Links are just one example.
"Its twats like you who fuck up the Internet for everyone else."
Thank you, thank you very much.
Seriously, what's stopping you from ignoring HTML mail then? It should be even easier for a mail reader to strip HTML tags then it would be to recognize a URL. You could then view HTML mail as plain text with tags, plain text without tags, or rich HTML. Voila, you have removed a large portion of the drawbacks of HTML mail without forcing people to your view.
Oh yes, and of course email couldn't *possibly* have any use for hyperlinks.
With all due respect, I like my HTML mail. Why? For the same reason that I like HTML websites, or real word processing software over Notepad, or PDF files instead of plaintext.
Actually 72 is 20% less than 90.
90 is 20% more than 75.
Numbers are about 90% vs. 75% according to another post in this thread, so DVD-R will work on a good 20% more players than DVD+R.
"I wonder if heating up a tank with liquid oxygen is a bright idea."
They had heaters *in* the oxygen tanks at least on the Apollo missions. Such a heater was in part responsible for the Apollo 13 near-disaster, though that was caused by a whose string of failures.
But that doesn't mean that you want to sit back and wait. Even if they wouldn't be able to prove it, if we can speed their demise by actively showing that the lot of them are insane, so much the better.
You're assuming the parent is serious, which the're most likely not. ;-)
Who the hell modded this interesting?
As tjb said, there's nothing preventing you from using a "weird" sized word. I could give you a VHDL model of a simplified version of a MIPS from a computer archetecture class that I can modify to use, say, 37 bit words if you don't oUeve me.
If you're referring to the movie adaption, watch it again. He threw it into the fire while it was still in the envelope, and retrieved it with tongs. I don't think at any point he touched it.
I don't remember the book's version, and don't have a copy here in my dorm.
But anyway, the point is that it wasn't just a brief touch that would corrupt him. It's like if someone says "don't touch this" then you jokingly touch it for a second. Had he taken it for any length of time he would have been corrupted.
*ROTK SPOILER*
Even Frodo was corrupted, remember...
"The Wright brothers were the first in the USA, but definately not the first in the world. Infact quite a few people flew before Richard Pearce but none of these events were recorded."
... like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
No one had what IMO should be considered the first true "flight" before the Wrights. That is an unassisted takeoff, a flight with 3 axes of control, and a landing. Others had various parts of this, the most popular being an unassisted takeoff, flight with less than 3 axes of control, and a landing, but the Wrights were the first to combine all of them.
"All the so called "moon walks" could also be said to be dubious as we, ordinary individuals, have no proof at all that man acutally walked on the moon in the was it is shown on television. We have taken their word to be fact
Don't get me started here. If you discount those, then you have to be skeptical of the videos of manned flight in general, the photos taken of the earth from NEO, the fact that President Bush went to Iraq on Thanksgiving, the fact that we have troops in Iraq at all, that Tony Blair is PM of England, yadda yadda yadda.
"For instance, some have suggested that the definition should be a controlled take-off, flight path, and landing completely under the airplane's power (including no catapult assisted take-off). That definition would probably put the Wright Brothers back as "first", but it certainly wasn't the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight, it would be sometime later."
Why wouldn't 1903 count? The only thing that I could think of would be the catapult, because this is a common misconception. The 1903 flight did *NOT* use a catapult in any way, shape, or form. The best argument you could make is that it required a rather strong headwind.
No, wrong. True, it has elevons which combine alerons and the elevator, but it still has control of all three axes. It's just that one system handles two axes. The Wrights were the first to have systems for all three axes.
The 1903 flight did NOT use a catapult!
Again, this isn't PPT's fault. PPT is a good presentation tool when used properly (which is admittedly too infrequently). It does what it tries to do, IMO better than transparencies, slides, or just about anything else. If you're giving a presentation, PPT will do the trick for most things if you use it right.
I'm not particularily trying to nitpick, but PPT can have hyperlinks too.