I would like to meet the person who thought that. I don't know what I'd do to them though. Bemused handshake, or piledriver? Perhaps that's what caused the problem?
Is it really necessary to tell us that Jupiter is a planet in our own solar system? I'm not from the USA , but I assume your educational system isn't that bad!
You mean that/. is an imbroglio of confused and invalid markup that any browser would be lucky to render "properly", and that Firebird - with its outstanding adherance to web standards - has trouble guessing what it all means? Having said that, I never see any rendering problems with Firebird. I've used every official Windows release since 0.6.
I have a 10GB iPod with a little over 1000 tracks on it. I don't use playlists. I choose a song I want to hear, scroll through the 1000 tracks, and select it. After that, the iPod is set to play random tracks. Easy.
Credit-card transactions where the "card is not present" and thus personally examined by a clerk account for the overwhelming majority of fraud transactions.
I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but in Ireland the clerk has virtually no impact on the security of the transaction. I don't even sign my own name for most small transactions. I once wrote 'Krusty the Klown' surrounded by stars as my signature, just to see if the clerk was paying attention.
Also, your post is misleading. Maybe fraud is more common online, but the ways of obtaining card details are mostly offline. You're much more likely to have your card number stolen by a waiter in a restaurant than in a secure online transaction.
It's not a clear cut issue, certainly. Check out the amount of discussion at bugzilla (bug #122445): http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122445
That would help people who are aware of the problem to quickly notice it, but it's no use for people who don't know the trick. I'd like a solution that educates the ignorant (as a dialog could), makes things easier for the knowledgeable (like your solution would), but steers clear of trying to usurp browser control from the stupid.
I've seen some suggestions about removing the ability to visit such pages at all unless you change an advanced option. I think that's too extreme. A dialog that can be turned off ("don't show me again") and the option of highlighting the domain (perhaps on by default) would be great.
It's an interesting phenomenon, and quite beautiful, but nothing to be surprised by. No-one ever said (well loads said it but they were wrong) that nothing can go faster than light. Nothing can go faster than c, the speed of light in a vacuum.
A few hundred-thousandths of a second is an eternity for a photon.
Actually the entire lifetime of the universe, the length of time itself, is only an instant from the perspective of something traveling at the speed of light. Time dilation reduces it all to an infinitessimal period.
There's another quote of Pratchett's (I think, maybe Adams) along the lines that light travels so astoundingly fast that it takes most civilizations thousands of years to realise that it travels at all.
Only IE doesn't show the rest of the address in this specific case, but all browsers have the problem of displaying 'http://www.ebay.com/index.html@myspamdomain.com'. In this case the user should be alerted, at least the first time, that the site may be trying to fool them. The fact that the whole URL is shown doesn't help most people. Heck most people don't even notice the address bar.
From other comments in this thread, and from the second comment on my post, it appears Opera already implements this. I think Firebird should too. I may even file a bug report (RFE) if there isn't one already. (Can anyone tell me the exact text of the Opera message?)
IE/Mac and IE/Win are completely seperate entities. Different code teams, different rendering engines (IE/Mac reportedly has one that works for the most part). I would imagine that this means that they share very little if any code. I certainly don't remember an IE security alert that didn't feature several responses of 'works right on the Mac'.
It would be possible (trivial?) to put a feature in our favourite open source browser to give a security warning when you visit such a URL. Just something that tells you about the possibility that you're at a site different to the one you think you're at. It would just need to ensure that the actual domain is made obvious. eg.
The site you are visiting may be attempting to masquerade as a different site. The site actualDomain.com appears to be masquerading as apparentDomain.com.
Visit the real apparentDomain.com (link)
[ ] Don't show this warning in future. (checkbox)
You would just need to search for 'www.' or one of the TLDs in the part of the URL before the @ sign.
Of course I knew someone would see a hole in the theory. Just because something is bulletproof doesn't mean it doesn't have holes in it. They could have been drilled.;-)
As I understand it, any valid doctype will trigger standards mode in Mozilla (which depends on which standard is being used). Incomplete and missing doctypes will cause quirks mode. There is also an 'almost standard' mode, which has only one obscure difference from standards mode. I can't remember how it's triggered, unfortunately.
The theory, which is pretty much bullet-proof as far as I can see, is that any designer who puts a document type declaration at the top of his page is likely to know about and obey web standards. Anyone who doesn't is likely to be one of those designers that got a 'web design' certificate from his local graphic design college and doesn't know a standard, an alternative browser or an accessibility enhancement if it hits him in the face.
[Roger Penrose] basically uses Godel's theorem to show that consciousness is not Turing computable, hence not implementable on current hardware
And there are many who suggest that anyone other than Penrose would be ridiculed for using that argument. I have a great deal of respect for Penrose; he is undoubtedly a genius of the highest order. But Godel's theorem cannot be used in such a manner, and Penrose's hypothesis - I call it Penrose's though he wasn't the first to use it - was disproved by Alan Turning about fifty years ago.
The FSF and Red Hat believe that the progress of science is best advanced by eliminating the profit motive from software development
I can really see Red Hat wanting to remove profit from software developement. I'm sure DmcB - or the PR person who actually wrote this - knows that this is... less than accurate, but are there atually people reading this letter who don't see it?
The moderation system is irrelevant. I personally like to read replies to my posts, which pretty much requires me to lower my threshold. Presumably, since you are addressing the parent poster, you expect her to read your post - yet it is moderated +1 as I write this! In order to read your post, one has to wade through several other abusive replies with the same score.
That's a very good point, and one I hadn't considered. I don't tend to post very often; I read the story and whatever high-rated commments are there the first time around. I rarely go back to a topic once I'm finished.
But the parent of my first post seems to be saying that she doesn't use the site for anything but blogging anymore ("I'll chime in every now and again, but right now the main reason I use this site is to blog."), that once the participation is gone, so is everything else. (Although she's posted 21 times so far this month, so maybe that statement is a little less than accurate.) I wanted to point out that the option was still there to read the high-rated comments and get some value out of the site while ignoring the 'cyberbullies'. I stand by this, but I acknowledge that participation would be hampered by them.
I really can't bring myself to believe that you don't know about slashdot's moderation system. I only read at 4 - except when I have mod points to throw around when I read at 3 - and I *never* see anything worse than posts that are too long for my diminished attention. No flames, no disturbing imagery, just interesting, insightful, informative and funny. No-one should be able to find offence in a 4 or 5 -rated slashdot post. The system works.
you're gonna have Lifers with no hacking skills with these shirts on.
I realise most people won't have read the proposal, so here you go:
What will I be saying if I display it?
When you put the glider emblem on your web page, or wear it on clothing, or display it in some other way, you are visibly associating yourself with the hacker culture. This is not quite the same thing as claiming to be a hacker yourself -- that is a title of honor that generally has to be conferred by others rather than self-assumed. But by using this emblem, you express sympathy with our goals, our values, our way of living.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it hard to believe that even the Finnish would let a one-year old join an infantry regiment.
I would like to meet the person who thought that. I don't know what I'd do to them though. Bemused handshake, or piledriver? Perhaps that's what caused the problem?
I stand both corrected and deeply appalled. But anyone could have missed Canada, all tucked away down there.
Is it really necessary to tell us that Jupiter is a planet in our own solar system? I'm not from the USA , but I assume your educational system isn't that bad!
You mean that /. is an imbroglio of confused and invalid markup that any browser would be lucky to render "properly", and that Firebird - with its outstanding adherance to web standards - has trouble guessing what it all means? Having said that, I never see any rendering problems with Firebird. I've used every official Windows release since 0.6.
I have a 10GB iPod with a little over 1000 tracks on it. I don't use playlists. I choose a song I want to hear, scroll through the 1000 tracks, and select it. After that, the iPod is set to play random tracks. Easy.
I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but in Ireland the clerk has virtually no impact on the security of the transaction. I don't even sign my own name for most small transactions. I once wrote 'Krusty the Klown' surrounded by stars as my signature, just to see if the clerk was paying attention.
Also, your post is misleading. Maybe fraud is more common online, but the ways of obtaining card details are mostly offline. You're much more likely to have your card number stolen by a waiter in a restaurant than in a secure online transaction.
It's not a clear cut issue, certainly. Check out the amount of discussion at bugzilla (bug #122445): http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122445
That would help people who are aware of the problem to quickly notice it, but it's no use for people who don't know the trick. I'd like a solution that educates the ignorant (as a dialog could), makes things easier for the knowledgeable (like your solution would), but steers clear of trying to usurp browser control from the stupid.
I've seen some suggestions about removing the ability to visit such pages at all unless you change an advanced option. I think that's too extreme. A dialog that can be turned off ("don't show me again") and the option of highlighting the domain (perhaps on by default) would be great.
Yes, I thought it read more like Adams. That man has some of the best quotes. Probably because he had the best ideas.
It's an interesting phenomenon, and quite beautiful, but nothing to be surprised by. No-one ever said (well loads said it but they were wrong) that nothing can go faster than light. Nothing can go faster than c, the speed of light in a vacuum.
Actually the entire lifetime of the universe, the length of time itself, is only an instant from the perspective of something traveling at the speed of light. Time dilation reduces it all to an infinitessimal period.
There's another quote of Pratchett's (I think, maybe Adams) along the lines that light travels so astoundingly fast that it takes most civilizations thousands of years to realise that it travels at all.
Only IE doesn't show the rest of the address in this specific case, but all browsers have the problem of displaying 'http://www.ebay.com/index.html@myspamdomain.com'. In this case the user should be alerted, at least the first time, that the site may be trying to fool them. The fact that the whole URL is shown doesn't help most people. Heck most people don't even notice the address bar.
From other comments in this thread, and from the second comment on my post, it appears Opera already implements this. I think Firebird should too. I may even file a bug report (RFE) if there isn't one already. (Can anyone tell me the exact text of the Opera message?)
Pop-ip blocking? Does that block popular IP addresses or something? Like slashdot, google etc. ;-)
IE/Mac and IE/Win are completely seperate entities. Different code teams, different rendering engines (IE/Mac reportedly has one that works for the most part). I would imagine that this means that they share very little if any code. I certainly don't remember an IE security alert that didn't feature several responses of 'works right on the Mac'.
It would be possible (trivial?) to put a feature in our favourite open source browser to give a security warning when you visit such a URL. Just something that tells you about the possibility that you're at a site different to the one you think you're at. It would just need to ensure that the actual domain is made obvious. eg.
You would just need to search for 'www.' or one of the TLDs in the part of the URL before the @ sign.
Of course I knew someone would see a hole in the theory. Just because something is bulletproof doesn't mean it doesn't have holes in it. They could have been drilled. ;-)
As I understand it, any valid doctype will trigger standards mode in Mozilla (which depends on which standard is being used). Incomplete and missing doctypes will cause quirks mode. There is also an 'almost standard' mode, which has only one obscure difference from standards mode. I can't remember how it's triggered, unfortunately.
The theory, which is pretty much bullet-proof as far as I can see, is that any designer who puts a document type declaration at the top of his page is likely to know about and obey web standards. Anyone who doesn't is likely to be one of those designers that got a 'web design' certificate from his local graphic design college and doesn't know a standard, an alternative browser or an accessibility enhancement if it hits him in the face.
Heineken is the most popular beer in the world. Your ironic point still holds though. ;-)
And there are many who suggest that anyone other than Penrose would be ridiculed for using that argument. I have a great deal of respect for Penrose; he is undoubtedly a genius of the highest order. But Godel's theorem cannot be used in such a manner, and Penrose's hypothesis - I call it Penrose's though he wasn't the first to use it - was disproved by Alan Turning about fifty years ago.
I can really see Red Hat wanting to remove profit from software developement. I'm sure DmcB - or the PR person who actually wrote this - knows that this is... less than accurate, but are there atually people reading this letter who don't see it?
The moderation system is irrelevant. I personally like to read replies to my posts, which pretty much requires me to lower my threshold. Presumably, since you are addressing the parent poster, you expect her to read your post - yet it is moderated +1 as I write this! In order to read your post, one has to wade through several other abusive replies with the same score.
That's a very good point, and one I hadn't considered. I don't tend to post very often; I read the story and whatever high-rated commments are there the first time around. I rarely go back to a topic once I'm finished.
But the parent of my first post seems to be saying that she doesn't use the site for anything but blogging anymore ("I'll chime in every now and again, but right now the main reason I use this site is to blog."), that once the participation is gone, so is everything else. (Although she's posted 21 times so far this month, so maybe that statement is a little less than accurate.) I wanted to point out that the option was still there to read the high-rated comments and get some value out of the site while ignoring the 'cyberbullies'. I stand by this, but I acknowledge that participation would be hampered by them.
I really can't bring myself to believe that you don't know about slashdot's moderation system. I only read at 4 - except when I have mod points to throw around when I read at 3 - and I *never* see anything worse than posts that are too long for my diminished attention. No flames, no disturbing imagery, just interesting, insightful, informative and funny. No-one should be able to find offence in a 4 or 5 -rated slashdot post. The system works.
I realise most people won't have read the proposal, so here you go: