Lotus Notes was not actually directly created by Lotus, the development was done by a separate company and Lotus sold and marketed it. It's user interface was based on an existing app for the mainframe called PLATO Notes.
Thank you for mentioning this. the same thing happened with Lotus Notes 7, everyone kept talking about how they fixed the user interface, and when I tried it it was the same old CRAP I've been using since R3 in Windows for Workgroups.
I know, but altering the session isn't the only part of the exploit. You also have to be able to create or modify PL/SQL in the database. Still not strictly ALTER, but the point is, application user should only be able to read and maybe write to tables. If I can help it, I don't even use PL/SQL. The database is the worst place to put application logic anyway. I use PL/SQL for ad-hoc stuff.
The conception of rights in the United States had a reasoned, consistent philosophical backing. As far as I can tell, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was just a slapped-together wish-list.
If I don't buy health insurance, an insurance goon doesn't beat me up. That's what "protection" racket means. As long as insurance is voluntary, it's not a protection racket. On the other hand, it's doubtful you'd be able to opt out of a national health care plan since it requires more people paying in than taking out. That's a lot closer to a protection racket than insurance is, if you think about it.
In America the goal was supposed to be to protect the rights of citizens so they could live their lives as THEY see fit, not to improve their lives according to some government-defined criteria. Anyway, health care could never be a right in the same manner that for example the right to free speech is, because my right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to listen. My presumed right to health care would require other people to pay for it, however, which makes it a peculiar sort of right that takes from someone else in equals amounts as it gives to me.
Because when everyone can get a test to find out all the illnesses they are likely to get, they are going to take out mucho insurance to cover those things, while the insurance company is not going to have access to the same information in order to deny coverage. Because, as an insurer: if you know someone is very likely going to get breast cancer, why would you give them coverage that's going to cost you more money than they put in in payments? You are a business, not a charity. The insurance company wants the same medical information you have access to. What it comes down to is that if the consumer via routine health checkup has access to information that can enable them to take out an insurance plan that in the long run will pay out more than they put in, if the insurer doesn't have the same access to that information then the health insurance business potentially isn't viable anymore.
The music was never warranteed to be playable forever, but you will find that as part of every DRM music purchase agreement there is an explicit statement that to be playable the music must be authenticated against a service. There is no explicit or implied statement that such authentication methods would be in place forever. This is the part where the buyer should have said "I'm not buying this crap" and walked away. Caveat Emptor. There is no theft of property nor is there a breach of license for either party. The arguments do not even apply.
Years ago I bought a Braun shaver. Only Braun-brand shaving replacement blades work in the thing. That was 20 years ago, the model is retired and they don't make that model of replacement blade anymore. Does this represent theft of property on Braun's part because I can't use a 20-year-old razor? The answer is that if you can only go to one source to effectively use a product, you as a consumer need to be smart enough to understand that that relationship will only last as long as it's viable for the company to keep doing that. There is no implied warranty in the statement "shaves great" any more than "plays for sure." The product had a shelf-life.
Because when you invoke "accessibility," that is referring to making handicapped-accessible web pages. HTML standards include features to facilitate accessibility, but it does not address accessibility per-se. Oh, and the article topic is if blind people deserve to have accessible web pages. You can have web pages that are perfectly usable by the blind while being completely noncompliant to HTML standards.
Thousands of reporters have been denied access and free travel in Tibet since the protests during the torch carrying. This is in direct contradiction to their promise to allow reporters free movement in "China." Reporters are being removed "for their safety."
Typically there has not been that much media interest in Tibet, but now that things are getting hot, reporters are being denied access.
If all you pay for is shit, then I program shit. Maybe if software "professionals" had a guild with binding professional standards of conduct then we wouldn't be afraid of losing our jobs if we refused to stand up cardboard outhouses. Or, our jobs could just go to India, either one might happen if we did that.
Under ADA standards it is perfectly acceptable for you to have a separate, handicapped-accessible site. You don't have to change your site if you don't want to, but if you fall under ADA regulations you might have to have a second site if you still want those kool features.
You're just not looking at it from the standpoint of a laissez-faire capitalist. The free market didn't fail, blind people failed by not being a valuable market to be catered to.
There are plenty of parking lots that have giant signs that say "no semis allowed," and for the exact same reason that some sites say Internet Explorer only. Because the two things work functionally differently and you need to have designed for both to be usable to both. And the exclusion is for the exact same reason as well, because it would add extra cost for an insignificant fraction of business.
If it's not a requirement, it doesn't get programmed that way. Therefore, it's the customer's fault. And by the way, people who say ADA compliance is a programming baseline don't actually know how to do ADA accessibility correctly. If you're going to have an ALT tag, there needs to be a discussion about what it says to make sure it's not worthless to a blind person. Same with labels. If it's going to be a baseline, that's something that the customer and the requirements-gatherer need to discuss, and that's all stuff that happens before the developer is supposed to get the project.
Implicit in your statement is that, as a nerd, you have to even acknowledge that other fields have depth and value at all. I know numerous people (my friends, mostly) who went through a liberal arts school with a CS degree and derided philosophy, art, history, anthropology majors the whole time as having "fluff" degrees that don't actually teach you anything "useful." I was to a lesser extent the same way, but I look back at that period and cringe at what a bunch of ignorant pricks we were, thinking we were better than everyone else when it was us who were the ones with the problem.
This isn't rocket science, an illegal combatant is any combatant that does not conform to set Geneva Convention requirements for a LEGAL combatant. The Geneva Conventions specify the requirements for LAWFUL REGULAR forces. If you do not conform to this definition, you are by implication an "unlawful", ILLEGAL or irregular combatant. It's the inverse of a defined LEGAL combatant. Stop perpetuating this dumb semantic argument.
If you want to take it up with the Bush Administration, it's really easy to do, because they are liars and only quote the Conventions where it's convenient and omit arguments that contradict their interpretation. For example, when referring to illegal combatants, they conspicuously do not mention the following:
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
In other words, the part that says illegal combatants STILL HAVE RIGHTS, and the right to a trial is explicitly mentioned.
You just connect, get a list of peers, and disconnect. re-connect periodically and add to your list. The protocol is not rocket science, I bet you could write an app to do that in less than 20 lines of Python. Bram Cohen has said repeatedly Bittorrent was not made for piracy. Your anonymity is nil.
Some trackers keep stats on connections, but I doubt many of them get more complex than just tracking upload/download volumes. If I wanted to prevent a tracker from noticing me, I'd just limit my uploads to any of the numerous worthless files that are in most apps' source code, like placeholders and Windows header files that can't be copyrighted.
Why do you deserve to win the auction if you're not willing to pay as much as someone else? There are pros and cons to both systems, but at least ubid can't be gamed. Because of snipers, ebay is basically a blind auction that allows peeking until the last 2 seconds of bidding. On ebay, you're either a sniper or you're a sucker who reveals your bid early. I like ubid because I don't have to play retarded games.
I've used uBid periodically, It's got some features that actually make it more desirable. For example, it handles auctions of multiple of the same items better, and if someone bids in the last 15 minutes of the auction, it will extend bidding five minutes continuously until people stop bidding. Just like a real auction.
http://www.ubid.com/
Slashdot Mirror
Lotus Notes was not actually directly created by Lotus, the development was done by a separate company and Lotus sold and marketed it. It's user interface was based on an existing app for the mainframe called PLATO Notes.
Thank you for mentioning this. the same thing happened with Lotus Notes 7, everyone kept talking about how they fixed the user interface, and when I tried it it was the same old CRAP I've been using since R3 in Windows for Workgroups.
I know, but altering the session isn't the only part of the exploit. You also have to be able to create or modify PL/SQL in the database. Still not strictly ALTER, but the point is, application user should only be able to read and maybe write to tables. If I can help it, I don't even use PL/SQL. The database is the worst place to put application logic anyway. I use PL/SQL for ad-hoc stuff.
That's exactly what I was thinking, what retard grants the application's database user ALTER privileges on database objects?
Mmmmm, Street Fighter II. But how would that be different in space?
The conception of rights in the United States had a reasoned, consistent philosophical backing. As far as I can tell, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was just a slapped-together wish-list.
If I don't buy health insurance, an insurance goon doesn't beat me up. That's what "protection" racket means. As long as insurance is voluntary, it's not a protection racket. On the other hand, it's doubtful you'd be able to opt out of a national health care plan since it requires more people paying in than taking out. That's a lot closer to a protection racket than insurance is, if you think about it.
In America the goal was supposed to be to protect the rights of citizens so they could live their lives as THEY see fit, not to improve their lives according to some government-defined criteria. Anyway, health care could never be a right in the same manner that for example the right to free speech is, because my right to free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to listen. My presumed right to health care would require other people to pay for it, however, which makes it a peculiar sort of right that takes from someone else in equals amounts as it gives to me.
Because when everyone can get a test to find out all the illnesses they are likely to get, they are going to take out mucho insurance to cover those things, while the insurance company is not going to have access to the same information in order to deny coverage. Because, as an insurer: if you know someone is very likely going to get breast cancer, why would you give them coverage that's going to cost you more money than they put in in payments? You are a business, not a charity. The insurance company wants the same medical information you have access to. What it comes down to is that if the consumer via routine health checkup has access to information that can enable them to take out an insurance plan that in the long run will pay out more than they put in, if the insurer doesn't have the same access to that information then the health insurance business potentially isn't viable anymore.
Years ago I bought a Braun shaver. Only Braun-brand shaving replacement blades work in the thing. That was 20 years ago, the model is retired and they don't make that model of replacement blade anymore. Does this represent theft of property on Braun's part because I can't use a 20-year-old razor? The answer is that if you can only go to one source to effectively use a product, you as a consumer need to be smart enough to understand that that relationship will only last as long as it's viable for the company to keep doing that. There is no implied warranty in the statement "shaves great" any more than "plays for sure." The product had a shelf-life.
Because when you invoke "accessibility," that is referring to making handicapped-accessible web pages. HTML standards include features to facilitate accessibility, but it does not address accessibility per-se. Oh, and the article topic is if blind people deserve to have accessible web pages. You can have web pages that are perfectly usable by the blind while being completely noncompliant to HTML standards.
Incidentally I just installed Gnash on my fresh install of Xubuntu PowerPC 8.04 Beta, and it would play Youtube videos. Minorly buggy, but it worked.
Typically there has not been that much media interest in Tibet, but now that things are getting hot, reporters are being denied access.
ADA-compliance and standards-compliant HTML are not the same thing, you know that right?
If all you pay for is shit, then I program shit. Maybe if software "professionals" had a guild with binding professional standards of conduct then we wouldn't be afraid of losing our jobs if we refused to stand up cardboard outhouses. Or, our jobs could just go to India, either one might happen if we did that.
Under ADA standards it is perfectly acceptable for you to have a separate, handicapped-accessible site. You don't have to change your site if you don't want to, but if you fall under ADA regulations you might have to have a second site if you still want those kool features.
You're just not looking at it from the standpoint of a laissez-faire capitalist. The free market didn't fail, blind people failed by not being a valuable market to be catered to.
There are plenty of parking lots that have giant signs that say "no semis allowed," and for the exact same reason that some sites say Internet Explorer only. Because the two things work functionally differently and you need to have designed for both to be usable to both. And the exclusion is for the exact same reason as well, because it would add extra cost for an insignificant fraction of business.
If it's not a requirement, it doesn't get programmed that way. Therefore, it's the customer's fault. And by the way, people who say ADA compliance is a programming baseline don't actually know how to do ADA accessibility correctly. If you're going to have an ALT tag, there needs to be a discussion about what it says to make sure it's not worthless to a blind person. Same with labels. If it's going to be a baseline, that's something that the customer and the requirements-gatherer need to discuss, and that's all stuff that happens before the developer is supposed to get the project.
Implicit in your statement is that, as a nerd, you have to even acknowledge that other fields have depth and value at all. I know numerous people (my friends, mostly) who went through a liberal arts school with a CS degree and derided philosophy, art, history, anthropology majors the whole time as having "fluff" degrees that don't actually teach you anything "useful." I was to a lesser extent the same way, but I look back at that period and cringe at what a bunch of ignorant pricks we were, thinking we were better than everyone else when it was us who were the ones with the problem.
In other words, the part that says illegal combatants STILL HAVE RIGHTS, and the right to a trial is explicitly mentioned.
You just connect, get a list of peers, and disconnect. re-connect periodically and add to your list. The protocol is not rocket science, I bet you could write an app to do that in less than 20 lines of Python. Bram Cohen has said repeatedly Bittorrent was not made for piracy. Your anonymity is nil. Some trackers keep stats on connections, but I doubt many of them get more complex than just tracking upload/download volumes. If I wanted to prevent a tracker from noticing me, I'd just limit my uploads to any of the numerous worthless files that are in most apps' source code, like placeholders and Windows header files that can't be copyrighted.
Why do you deserve to win the auction if you're not willing to pay as much as someone else? There are pros and cons to both systems, but at least ubid can't be gamed. Because of snipers, ebay is basically a blind auction that allows peeking until the last 2 seconds of bidding. On ebay, you're either a sniper or you're a sucker who reveals your bid early. I like ubid because I don't have to play retarded games.
I've used uBid periodically, It's got some features that actually make it more desirable. For example, it handles auctions of multiple of the same items better, and if someone bids in the last 15 minutes of the auction, it will extend bidding five minutes continuously until people stop bidding. Just like a real auction. http://www.ubid.com/