After reading through this carefully, it seems the fault is really with the webserver software (in this case, IIS). The problem is that normally a full-width character (such as FF1C in the example) and the regular character "<" are not equivalent, but IIS is translating the full-width form of a character into the regular character, so although the two forms were distinct before reaching the frontline filters, they are no longer distinct by the time it reaches application code running under IIS.
I guess whether you call this a fault depends on whether you think the webserver should be translating full-width characters to their equivalents. I tested a webpage, and both IE and FF do not consider "<" and "\uFF1C" (encoded in UTF-8) to be equivalent. The latter is displayed as a giant angle bracket, and does not work as the start of an HTML tag. I would think that the webserver should also respect this distinction. Anyone know more about full-width characters, or why they even exist?
You misread his (typo'ed) comment. He's not saying he knows them personally; he's saying that he knows (as in believes to be a fact) that billionaires are (this is the typo, in place of "and") the ones open to funding new ideas.
I can understand becoming attached to a machine, and I imagine the bond would be much greater when the machine is saving your life, but at this point the machine has no intelligence -- it'd be like being attached to a car or a pacemaker. I hope that this is kept clear, because when you become so attached to a machine, it could cloud your judgment -- when you have to decide whether to save a human or save a machine, the choice should be clear.
You say that he's neither lenient nor forgiving....can you give examples of this?
I was trying to say that the whole "pardoning" of lese majeste crimes was neither, not that he is neither forgiving nor lenient on the whole.
Also, although he has helped his people, it doesn't seem like such a grand gesture when you consider he's one of the wealthiest people in the entire world. I don't mean to belittle what he has done, but rather to ask why such a man of the people could be so incredibly wealthy?
I don't know why you could expect people to respect your tradition when you won't respect theirs. They're not telling you to not disrespect your political/ruling figures, but to extend respect to theirs.
I'm not telling anyone to disrespect their political/ruling figures either, but to leave those who do alone. No one is entitled to respect (my views are not limited to the Thai king -- judges in the USA are an example). If someone is worthy of respect, then those who realize this would simply understand that those disrespecting the person are not worth paying attention to. The Thai reaction shows that this isn't merely about respect, this is about worship of a god-like figure.
It's the law. If you don't like it change it. If you can't stop bitching about it.
Why? Seems like a recipe for getting stuck with stupid laws. It's also interesting that you say nothing about whether the law is fair or just, only that it is the law.
And by the way, it's for UP TO 15 years...not a gaurantee of 15 years.
I believe I read that the minimum is 3 years, which is 3 years too many. Even if no one ever serves such a long sentence, the possibility of serving such a sentence serves to both remind people of the unjust power the state holds, and gives the king an opportunity to appear lenient and forgiving, when he is being neither.
The very first post contradicts your assertion that nobody else mentioned it.
Although it doesn't mention pedophiles directly, it does imply them and is in line with the gist of your post. I didn't make the connection when I read it.
The funny thing is, the king in Thailand seems to like to pardon people (or at least foreigners) that do this, according to TFA.
This actually seems to be a fairly smart PR move. Imagine if there was a law that made it a crime to insult you (3-15 years in jail), and you also had the power to pardon people sentenced under this law. You could:
a. Do the right thing and denounce the law as unfair and unjust, telling your supporters not to be so overzealous, or
b. Silently accept the law, and reap the benefits of being able to "forgive" people for insulting you by pardoning them. Fools think you're a hero for being so generous.
Robbing someone of 15 years of their life and then giving it back isn't generous, it's cruelty. The people are foolish enough to support it, and the king does nothing about it.
An insult does not warrant 15 years in jail, no matter who it insults or how ugly the insult is. Whether or not the king deserved the insult is besides the point. If he was such a nice guy, he would decry such a law.
And to the inevitable "What do you expect from a country of pedophiles?" comments: There's absolutely nothing of the sort in your country?
Who said anything about requiring an IDE? I write all my code in a text editor, and yes I use generics, the new for loop, enums, etc. Your point is valid by itself, but the implication that using generics in Java requires an IDE is just plain wrong.
Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to boot you off their server, just as you can kick me out of your house. But suing my friend who wanted me to turn the volume up is not your right.
If I run a business that competes with some asshole running a business across the street, and I run a sale both to gain business and because I hate that guy, then yeah.
In WowGlider's case, I think this is irrelevant -- I don't think there's any feelings of malice against Blizzard here.
Although I don't like things like Warden (seems kinda invasive), Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to require its use to play their game. Don't like it? Don't play.
You imply that cheating at WoW causes Blizzard to lose money due to people being upset with cheaters and quitting. I agree this is possible. But like any clickthrough EULA, I don't think there's anything legally binding there. If they want to cheat, and the game allows them to cheat, then that's all there is to it. They're within their rights to ban them or close down their accounts, but the developers of cheating software have not done anything illegal. I particularly disagree with this bit:
tortious contract interference for soliciting people to violate the game's TOS
The developers of the cheating software are not developing the software for the sole purpose of destroying Blizzard -- the developers make money. Even if the developers didn't make money, they could claim it as a springboard to further business. Because it's not solely done for malice, but is done as a business should disqualify this from being a tort. Thus, using the law this way would simply be using the law to support your business model. Instead, they just kick-ban cheaters -- no law required.
In backgammon, you can usually take measures against people who cheat (anything from a good kickin' where it hurts to not playing with them anymore). In WoW, you don't have that option.
Well they could, oh, I don't know, terminate their account. Nah, that wouldn't work.
Seriously, there's no reason to get the law involved and set bad legal precedent.
Slashdot Mirror
In binary: 2^1039-1=11111111111...11111111 (1039 '1' bits)
After reading through this carefully, it seems the fault is really with the webserver software (in this case, IIS). The problem is that normally a full-width character (such as FF1C in the example) and the regular character "<" are not equivalent, but IIS is translating the full-width form of a character into the regular character, so although the two forms were distinct before reaching the frontline filters, they are no longer distinct by the time it reaches application code running under IIS.
I guess whether you call this a fault depends on whether you think the webserver should be translating full-width characters to their equivalents. I tested a webpage, and both IE and FF do not consider "<" and "\uFF1C" (encoded in UTF-8) to be equivalent. The latter is displayed as a giant angle bracket, and does not work as the start of an HTML tag. I would think that the webserver should also respect this distinction. Anyone know more about full-width characters, or why they even exist?
You misread his (typo'ed) comment. He's not saying he knows them personally; he's saying that he knows (as in believes to be a fact) that billionaires are (this is the typo, in place of "and") the ones open to funding new ideas.
Because making the computer more passive like TV would increase sales? Obviously the passive nature of TV works, why not bring it to the computer?
I can understand becoming attached to a machine, and I imagine the bond would be much greater when the machine is saving your life, but at this point the machine has no intelligence -- it'd be like being attached to a car or a pacemaker. I hope that this is kept clear, because when you become so attached to a machine, it could cloud your judgment -- when you have to decide whether to save a human or save a machine, the choice should be clear.
Also, although he has helped his people, it doesn't seem like such a grand gesture when you consider he's one of the wealthiest people in the entire world. I don't mean to belittle what he has done, but rather to ask why such a man of the people could be so incredibly wealthy? I'm not telling anyone to disrespect their political/ruling figures either, but to leave those who do alone. No one is entitled to respect (my views are not limited to the Thai king -- judges in the USA are an example). If someone is worthy of respect, then those who realize this would simply understand that those disrespecting the person are not worth paying attention to. The Thai reaction shows that this isn't merely about respect, this is about worship of a god-like figure.
a. Do the right thing and denounce the law as unfair and unjust, telling your supporters not to be so overzealous, or
b. Silently accept the law, and reap the benefits of being able to "forgive" people for insulting you by pardoning them. Fools think you're a hero for being so generous.
Robbing someone of 15 years of their life and then giving it back isn't generous, it's cruelty. The people are foolish enough to support it, and the king does nothing about it.
They'll probably throw in some MSN.com links on the SUSE desktop.
Yeah, I think the round starts when they come out with the encryption, and ends when it is broken.
It's a design flaw in that the board was allowed to flex every time the power button was pushed, leading to a broken solder joint.
It never went away
Does this mean that the jpeg you put into a Stuffit archive may not match the jpeg you pull out of it, or does it recode to Huffman when you extract?
Who said anything about requiring an IDE? I write all my code in a text editor, and yes I use generics, the new for loop, enums, etc. Your point is valid by itself, but the implication that using generics in Java requires an IDE is just plain wrong.
Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to boot you off their server, just as you can kick me out of your house. But suing my friend who wanted me to turn the volume up is not your right.
WowGlider is neither illegal nor stealing from Blizzard.
If I run a business that competes with some asshole running a business across the street, and I run a sale both to gain business and because I hate that guy, then yeah.
In WowGlider's case, I think this is irrelevant -- I don't think there's any feelings of malice against Blizzard here.
You seem to have misread my comment. The account being terminated would be the cheater's account, not the person avoiding cheaters.
Although I don't like things like Warden (seems kinda invasive), Blizzard is perfectly within their rights to require its use to play their game. Don't like it? Don't play.
Seriously, there's no reason to get the law involved and set bad legal precedent.