Form validation in Web Forms 2.0 will be pretty useless though as you are trusting the browser to do the right thing. You will still need to validate the data on the server else someone will come along with telnet and submit whatever data they want to your server.
No. Just as you wouldn't call the New York Times and advertising company, Google is a search engine company, that like the New York Times happens to show advertisements to earn a profit.
An advertising company actually creates the content for the adverts. Google doesn't do this - that's why it's not an advertising company.
You're forgetting how bad Netscape 4 was compared to IE 4 - that's why everyone switched to IE. Back when windows came with IE 3 everyone just downloaded Netscape.
And pretty shortly after IE4, IE5 came out, which ran rings around Netscape.
Maintaining backwards compatibility is a necessary burden I would say as there's a growing backlash to upgrading Firefox as each new version breaks all the extension, and extensions are one of the chief reasons why Firefox is so popular. If grandma has all her favourite extensions installed, then upgrades to the latest Firefox and all the extensions break she's going to blame Firefox.
Ah, but MS go to incredible lengths to ensure that all the most popular 3rd party programs still work with each release of Windows. Even if those programs do crazy things:
> Sorry, but no. Artificially restricting the > flow of information and culture just so a > service (programming, writing music, etc.) can > be forced into the same economic niche as a > physical good is neither fair nor just.
But if there were no copyright you'd have to conclude that some works wouldn't have been created, as there was no economic incentive to do so. So those works wouldn't naturally flow, as they only exist to take advantage of the so called artificial flow.
> Your basic premise is that copyright is a > natural given right. Its not, its a government- > enforced monopoly.
Your not telling the whole story here. Copyright is a monopoly protected by the Government in exchange for the work being released into the public domain at the end of the copyright term. (Now I totally agree with Lessig here that the term should be much shorter.)
> There is no place for government-enforced laws > that govern citizens inside their homes.
So by your logic if I kill you in your home that is okay?
Yeah I have seen them actually, they are published, and extracts are available in many text books also. Can you point me to some evidence that children hear grammatically correct sentences and then repeat and learn them?
Yeah and this didn't learn the language in any meaningful sense. It just found a statistical pattern, and then generates possible sentences from that pattern. That's a whole lot different to you and I understanding the language and generating intentional, meaningful sentences.
> Children learn by hearing correct native languages from their parents, teachers, friends, etc
This simply isn't true. Hundreds of corpra of children learning language have shown that the input from the parents is not grammatically correct, but in baby talk, or partial utterences. This is actually one of the arguments for Chomsky's theory: How do children who only hear a degenerate, incomplete form of the language end up learning the grammar correctly?
I don't see how this contradicts the innate ability to learn language theory that Chomsky put forth. This program itself has an innate grammar, the actual program itself, which the programmers endowed it with the ability to learn from a text.
Besides a human actually understands the meaning of the text once it learns it, whereas this program mearly can statistically discover pattern rules and generate new sentences from those patterns. The program doesn't actually understand what it generates,
Yeah, and how about Japanese words like natsukashi (kind of nostaglic/home sick/old fashioned charm) or omoshiroi (funny and or interesting) for which there are no exact English equivalents.
Well said. I for one am so sick of the "proof by repeated assertion" that python (and ruby) is more readable than perl. Yet nobody ever shows you 2 pieces of code, one in perl and one in python where it is clear that python is significantly more readable.
No it was conducted by IBM, not the government, so chances are you didn't pay researchers to do that.
Re:You can't catch it all
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
Your saying that sooner or later spam will be almost indistinguishable from legitimate mail? Don't you see once this happens the spammers will have lost as they will fail to be able to deliver their sales message - which is the point of spam - to send a sales message to many people. Once they can't deliver their message they will go out of business.
PHP being more secure than perl. You're joking right?
Where's PHP's equivalent of perl's taint mode? Where's the PHP's equivalent of perl's "use warnings" and "use strict"? Where's PHP's equivalent of DBI's parameterised queries?
You can kind of do this with Popfile an automatic email classifier. You can create mutiple categories of the kind of email you receive and train it to automatically classify them. It works pretty flawlessly after a few days of training.
Surely Borland could have come back with a counter offer of triple the salary? It must have been more than just the salary that drove them to Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Form validation in Web Forms 2.0 will be pretty useless though as you are trusting the browser to do the right thing. You will still need to validate the data on the server else someone will come along with telnet and submit whatever data they want to your server.
Minneapolis has a rush hour now? And at 5am?
> It seems silly to fight over the definition of life when the good citizens of Pennsylvania
> have decided that evolution is "just a theory".
No it was Charles Darwin who decided that evolution was a theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species
> Google is an advertising company
No. Just as you wouldn't call the New York Times and advertising company, Google is a search engine company, that like the New York Times happens to show advertisements to earn a profit.
An advertising company actually creates the content for the adverts. Google doesn't do this - that's why it's not an advertising company.
Exactly. I left Netscape in v4, but switched "back" to Firefox around 0.6.
You're forgetting how bad Netscape 4 was compared to IE 4 - that's why everyone switched to IE. Back when windows came with IE 3 everyone just downloaded Netscape. And pretty shortly after IE4, IE5 came out, which ran rings around Netscape.
Maintaining backwards compatibility is a necessary burden I would say as there's a growing backlash to upgrading Firefox as each new version breaks all the extension, and extensions are one of the chief reasons why Firefox is so popular. If grandma has all her favourite extensions installed, then upgrades to the latest Firefox and all the extensions break she's going to blame Firefox.
Ah, but MS go to incredible lengths to ensure that all the most popular 3rd party programs still work with each release of Windows. Even if those programs do crazy things:
/ 24/45779.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/12
"Why not just block the apps that rely on undocumented behavior?
Because every app that gets blocked is another reason for people not to upgrade to the next version of Windows"
I think Firefox should take a leaf out of MS's book and ensure that each release is compatible with the most popular extensions.
> Sorry, but no. Artificially restricting the
> flow of information and culture just so a
> service (programming, writing music, etc.) can
> be forced into the same economic niche as a
> physical good is neither fair nor just.
But if there were no copyright you'd have to conclude that some works wouldn't have been created, as there was no economic incentive to do so. So those works wouldn't naturally flow, as they only exist to take advantage of the so called artificial flow.
> Your basic premise is that copyright is a
> natural given right. Its not, its a government-
> enforced monopoly.
Your not telling the whole story here. Copyright is a monopoly protected by the Government in exchange for the work being released into the public domain at the end of the copyright term. (Now I totally agree with Lessig here that the term should be much shorter.)
> There is no place for government-enforced laws
> that govern citizens inside their homes.
So by your logic if I kill you in your home that is okay?
Yeah Lupin Sansei rocks! The theme tune remix CDs are nice too.
Yeah I have seen them actually, they are published, and extracts are available in many text books also. Can you point me to some evidence that children hear grammatically correct sentences and then repeat and learn them?
Yeah and this didn't learn the language in any meaningful sense. It just found a statistical pattern, and then generates possible sentences from that pattern. That's a whole lot different to you and I understanding the language and generating intentional, meaningful sentences.
> Children learn by hearing correct native languages from their parents, teachers, friends, etc
This simply isn't true. Hundreds of corpra of children learning language have shown that the input from the parents is not grammatically correct, but in baby talk, or partial utterences. This is actually one of the arguments for Chomsky's theory: How do children who only hear a degenerate, incomplete form of the language end up learning the grammar correctly?
I don't see how this contradicts the innate ability to learn language theory that Chomsky put forth. This program itself has an innate grammar, the actual program itself, which the programmers endowed it with the ability to learn from a text. Besides a human actually understands the meaning of the text once it learns it, whereas this program mearly can statistically discover pattern rules and generate new sentences from those patterns. The program doesn't actually understand what it generates,
Yeah, and how about Japanese words like natsukashi (kind of nostaglic/home sick/old fashioned charm) or omoshiroi (funny and or interesting) for which there are no exact English equivalents.
I stand corrected. Just checked it out, cool.
Interestingly Google Maps uses VML for some things when it is rendered on IE.
T ML_and_VML
http://www.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/#XH
VML is old and outdated, but right now it's the only vector format natively supported by a production browser.
Well said. I for one am so sick of the "proof by repeated assertion" that python (and ruby) is more readable than perl. Yet nobody ever shows you 2 pieces of code, one in perl and one in python where it is clear that python is significantly more readable.
> we pay researchers to do stuff like this???
No it was conducted by IBM, not the government, so chances are you didn't pay researchers to do that.
Your saying that sooner or later spam will be almost indistinguishable from legitimate mail? Don't you see once this happens the spammers will have lost as they will fail to be able to deliver their sales message - which is the point of spam - to send a sales message to many people. Once they can't deliver their message they will go out of business.
PHP being more secure than perl. You're joking right?
b m=%2F&submit=Search!&metaname=alldoc&sort=swishran k
Where's PHP's equivalent of perl's taint mode? Where's the PHP's equivalent of perl's "use warnings" and "use strict"? Where's PHP's equivalent of DBI's parameterised queries?
And have you seen the amount of entries for PHP on bugtraq: http://www.securityfocus.com/swsearch?query=php&s
As far as I know the first reference in relation to IT was in the book Peopleware.
You can kind of do this with Popfile an automatic email classifier. You can create mutiple categories of the kind of email you receive and train it to automatically classify them. It works pretty flawlessly after a few days of training.
Surely Borland could have come back with a counter offer of triple the salary? It must have been more than just the salary that drove them to Microsoft.