Okay, maybe it's just because it's late at night and I'm feeling cranky, but is there any reason why you couldn't just make that URL a link.
It's really simple. Here's how you do it:
<a href="url goes here">link text goes here!</a>
In your case, you might have written something like:
Here's the
technote (iirc) or at least one similar.
Which is coded this way:
Here's the <a href="http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artn um=95038">technote</a> (iirc) or at least one similar.
The main beef I have with URLs that aren't made into links is that they are automagically cut in half by Slashdot's filters. So it's not enough to cut and paste them -- you have to remove the space in the middle.
Umm... is there some reason that your machine wouldn't qualify for a flat rate repair?
Yes, because normally when you get something repaired, you pay for two different things:
Parts
and
Labor.
In this case, the "part" a CPU, is a very expensive part indeed.
Flat rate repair in cases like this would be bad, because it would have to be very high to cover the poor shmucks who have to have their CPU repaired. So, the flat rate for fixing a computer with a power supply problem would cost $1050 if the CPU needed replacing, and it would cost $1050 if the CUDA switch needed to flipped, and the battery replaced.
Well, it sounded like you were saying, "What do you mean it doesn't work in 10.2.8?!? I have Panther, and it works just fine!" In fact, that is what you said. It did sound like you were equating 10.2.8 and Panther.
Maybe if you had phrased it so:
It isn't working in 10.2.8? That is a shame. However, let me reassure you that I have the Panther seeds and Bluetooth is working, so it looks like it is just a problem with 10.2.8 and won't be a problem in Panther.
Then it would have been clearer. As it stood, your reply seemed to be questioning whether 10.2.8 really did have a problem with Bluetooth, when in fact you were simply letting him know that an upgrade to 10.3 should be worth it.
I can't help but think that this is going to hurt bartenders too.
Sure, maybe sometimes I might go with the "Hey, I've got nothing to hide" crowd, but having to have my license swiped and my photo taken might dissuade from just grabbing a beer at a bar. It won't be worth the trouble.
And tourists who don't understand what's going on and feel like they're being singled out are likely to tip the bartenders less too.
I can see how having a record of particularly troubling customers would be beneficial. For those of you out there in the restaurant world, what have you done in the past to deal with this? I do know that bars will sometimes call other bars to warn them about a customer they've just kicked out that is walking in their direction.
Seems like there could easily be less invasive technique. How about, if someone is getting close to be problematic, when they ask for another drink, the bartender goes, "Okay, but I'll need to get a photo and your license information to provide myself with legal protection in case you cause problems later on." Then, the person drinking gets to decide whether their privacy or that 11th drink is more important. That way, you won't bother people who aren't even close to be a problem (I generally have 1-2 drinks tops).
Is there any reason why the ISP can't set up some sort of SPAM filtering on their end?
Also, why not just set up the ISP's server as a backup server only? That way, you access your e-mail through the main server, which would make the mail go through your SPAM rules, right?
Beck is often quoted for saying that the XP practices "turn the dial all the way up to 10" -- that is, if something is good (testing, integrating, pair programming etc), well then, let's do it all the time.
Nigel: "All the numbers go to 11..." Director Marty Dibergi: "I see, and most amps go up to 10. Does that mean it's louder?" Nigel: "Well, it's one louder, isn't it? You see, most blokes will be playing at 10...you're on 10 on your guitar. Where can you go from there?...Nowhere, exactly. So when we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?" Marty: "Put it to 11." Nigel: "Exactly. One louder." Marty: "Why don't just make 10 louder and make 10 the top number and make that a little louder?" Nigel (chewing gum, pauses while he considers the question, then states confidently): "These go to 11."
The problem isn't the law, per se. It's the problems that come up when this sort of law is applied in the same way to software as it is to more physical inventions. If I went in and tried to patent "A method for converting harvested grains to a flour substance", I'd be told that my patent wasn't specific enough. But I could patent "Using text and images for business on the Internet". Actually, I couldn't. PanIP already did that. Many years after the Internet, Amazon and all, were live and kicking. Prior art existed; why in the hell did they get that patent? There need to be technology specialists working in the PTO -- geeks like us who read Slashdot, who are paranoid about infringing on the rights of others and think through before just granting patents on anything to anyone.
In this case, the patent was put into place well before it was being used in actual browsers, so there isn't as much a prior art issue as a specificity issue. Generally, I think that because software can have such a broad application (imagine the hell we would live in if someone had patented the general concept of a database - "a data storage system with efficient retrieval systems" and so on) it is important to make sure that the language of the patent forces a company to work out its own solution to the problem, but doesn't prevent it from an entire branch of technological innovation.
Also, editors -- why isn't "Patents" one of the topics for this story? This is clearly taking place only because patents are being exercised; everybody here is talking about the patents. Listing this story under "Patents" will make sure that if someone is trying to look up or research examples of egregious patents being used as IP weapons (even against such a hated enemy/Slashdot sponsor as Microsoft).
I entered my e-mail address, a from address, and the mail went through.
Essentially, your web page is providing the equivalent of an open relay.
You need to remove the "mailto" field, as that allows the form to be used to send out an address to anybody. Once that's gone, your form should be secure again.
I'd like you to notice that the hits all match what you wanted -- replacing a washer in a leaky faucet.
The whole point is that the "how" "to" "a" and "in " *are* common words, so they're not needed for a successful search. In fact, if you entered that as a phrase you'd be less likely to get effective results, because not everyone might phrase it the way you did, even though they're offering the information you want.
The only time I'm unsuccessful in a google search is when I'm looking for an exceptionally rare bug or problem in a software program. Then, it's not always clear what I should search for, and sometimes the specific error codes I get return 0 results.
Are you arguing that medicine should be subjective? I argue that it should be objective. A doctor's diagnosis and recommended treatment should be based on analysis of data (temperature, blood pressure, blood chemistry, mri's, whatever) using knowledge of diseases/conditions. If a task is objective, then it can be performed by a computer. Now if you want to argue that doctors should be subjective rather than objective, go right ahead, I will not entertain such nonsense.
First of all, where are the patients going to correctly assess their symptoms. If I have a headache, I don't know what steps to take to determine whether it's cause by malnutrition, dehydration, or a brain tumor. Typing in "My head hurts" into a computer and having 10,000 different potential ailments coming up won't help either. A big role for doctors and nurses is to correctly observe the symptoms of a patient and to determine which symptoms seem most important.
So, in order to have these databases do the trick, first you'd need to create amazingly complex diagnosis devices, that could scan a human being, measure every possible symptom, and punch all of the data it collected to determine whether that matrix of symptoms matched a disease.
Hmmmm...I'm sure you've heard about HMOs that won't let doctors perform MRIs or other types of machine scans without a good reason? That's because those cost a whole lot. So, imagine a machine that had the complexity required to perform a full diagnosis! A single scan would cost thousands of dollars! That's not saving money, that's losing money.
But all this igores the biggest cog in the wheel: the patients. I don't care if it's cheaper. If I was sick, I'd much rather talk to a doctor about it than a machine. I don't see a time in the foreseeable future when a majority of people will agree to trust their health or life to the calculations of a machine.
The "turn your head and cough" doctor is usually a general practitioner. As such, what they're supposed to be good at is communicating and connecting with their patients over a long period of time, sometimes that person's entire life. That doctor has a comprehensive understanding of the person's history, and also can understand what that person's attitudes towards health are. Generally, they don't make as much money as surgeons do.
Compettition among corporations will cause them to decrease prices. In a perfect market, this will continue until all providers charge the minimum possible.
$200 Nike shoes cost about $2 in materials and labor. But Nike charges a lot. One reason is that they spend a whole lot of money on advertising. In fact, most of the cost of a pair of shoes is the advertising money spent to sell them. If hospitals didn't spend money on doctors, they'd find something else to spend the money on.
Healthcare isn't expensive in the US because of the doctors. It's expensive because the corporations are out to make as much money as they can, and because people in the United States put a very high price on their lives and health, so they're willing to pay for it (or have someone else pay for it, since many of them are covered by health insurance).
Rocks?!? You were lucky to have rocks! All we had was an old dirt floor that we scratched with sticks. And if our handwriting wasn't neat, the schoolmaster would beat us and make us eat the stick. Rocks! Hmmph!
Actually, as I understand it, the latest versions of Flash have added many features centering on accessibility. That's not to say that XHTML isn't still *more* accessible, just that Flash is much better at this than it was.
From his post: If you are interested in testing this, email me offline.
Oh, okay. How do you want me to do that? Use smoke signals over TCP/IP?
I've never used *BSD, but all the propoganda I've read says that it has a built in Linux emulator. Wouldn't that make it easy to port?
Also, why bother using a card that requires some special driver? Every run of the mill Ethernet card that I've thrown in a box works just fine without any tweaking or downloading special drivers.
I don't believe this ever was a "famous hole in cc". Instead, Ken Thomspon merely pointed out that trust in the code you were compiling was not enough; you would have to trust the compiler as well, which inherently meant you had to trust the compiler compiling that compiler, and so on. Essentially the only compiler you could trust is one you wrote yourself in machine code, otherwise you can't be sure what its compiled, binary form contains.
Whether anyone ever acted on this potential exploit is up for further research, but for it to be effectively done in Open Source, it could only be executed on a per-machine basis. That is, they'd have to change the compiler on your machine, because if they put the exploit right in publically available source code, it wouldn't be too difficult to find it when the code was reviewed.
What I find interesting is that this is listed as a "Classic" article, and that page is dated 1995! This idea has been out for a while.
If I recall correctly, absentee votes were *crucial*. That's why there was the whole controversy about them -- military personel, who tend to be conservative, were encouraged to send in absentee ballots *after* the election, in order to get George Bush in office.
The Gore team worked to get every suspicious absentee ballot (i.e. unclear postmark) excluded, until Lieberman was asked on national TV if he felt that the votes of servicepeople shouldn't count (an unfair question, as it was clear that most of these votes were really illegal votes). He said no, of course not, and so they backed off of excluding these from the results.
Since then, ballots around the state have been counted and recounted, and ignoring the overvotes (gee, I wonder whether all those senior citizens were voting for Buchanan or Gore?!?), Bush may have had a slim majority of the votes. However, in the process that led to the whole Supreme Court rigamarole, the votes gleaned from absentee votes no doubt aided in strengthening the Bush position.
If Gore had simply managed to secure his own state, he would have been president. Also, I think the fact that he could "count" on the strong Democratic vote in Florida hurt him, since he didn't go down there to campaign much. He was depending on the votes of a bunch of Senior Citizens, who unfortunately got really confused by the butterfly ballot. Had he campaigned in Florida, it's possible he could have moved some people who voted for Nader or a third party to vote for him instead.
With the election this close, according to Florida election law the absentee votes should have been thrown out entirely. It's pretty clear that there should have been a runoff election in Florida, and there's no question in anyone's minds what would have happened the second time, assuming that they didn't use the same butterfly ballots that they'd used before.
We're putting a lot of emphasis on the inherent problems posed by poor security in electronic voting. What about the inherent problems posed by antiquitated voting machines and ballots with poor usability (i.e. the confusing Butterfly ballot)? As was seen in 2000, those problems will have a much larger effect.
Actually, there are incandescent bulbs (i.e., normal screw-in bulbs with filaments) that purport to offer "Full Spectrum" lighting. I think the issue isn't whether they're fluorescent or not; it has to do with the wavelenghts of light given off.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really simple. Here's how you do it:In your case, you might have written something like:Which is coded this way:The main beef I have with URLs that aren't made into links is that they are automagically cut in half by Slashdot's filters. So it's not enough to cut and paste them -- you have to remove the space in the middle.
Umm... is there some reason that your machine wouldn't qualify for a flat rate repair?
Yes, because normally when you get something repaired, you pay for two different things:
Parts
and
Labor.
In this case, the "part" a CPU, is a very expensive part indeed.
Flat rate repair in cases like this would be bad, because it would have to be very high to cover the poor shmucks who have to have their CPU repaired. So, the flat rate for fixing a computer with a power supply problem would cost $1050 if the CPU needed replacing, and it would cost $1050 if the CUDA switch needed to flipped, and the battery replaced.
So no, flat rate repair is dumb.
Yeah, really frikkin interesting.
Jeez, do mods even READ?!?
If you have to mod this up, mod it funny. And I guess it's sorta funny, in a kind of "Oh look. A pron joke" way.
*sigh*...
Hmmm...
Well, it sounded like you were saying, "What do you mean it doesn't work in 10.2.8?!? I have Panther, and it works just fine!" In fact, that is what you said. It did sound like you were equating 10.2.8 and Panther.
Maybe if you had phrased it so:
It isn't working in 10.2.8? That is a shame. However, let me reassure you that I have the Panther seeds and Bluetooth is working, so it looks like it is just a problem with 10.2.8 and won't be a problem in Panther.
Then it would have been clearer. As it stood, your reply seemed to be questioning whether 10.2.8 really did have a problem with Bluetooth, when in fact you were simply letting him know that an upgrade to 10.3 should be worth it.
There, I'm glad that's all settled.
I can't help but think that this is going to hurt bartenders too.
Sure, maybe sometimes I might go with the "Hey, I've got nothing to hide" crowd, but having to have my license swiped and my photo taken might dissuade from just grabbing a beer at a bar. It won't be worth the trouble.
And tourists who don't understand what's going on and feel like they're being singled out are likely to tip the bartenders less too.
I can see how having a record of particularly troubling customers would be beneficial. For those of you out there in the restaurant world, what have you done in the past to deal with this? I do know that bars will sometimes call other bars to warn them about a customer they've just kicked out that is walking in their direction.
Seems like there could easily be less invasive technique. How about, if someone is getting close to be problematic, when they ask for another drink, the bartender goes, "Okay, but I'll need to get a photo and your license information to provide myself with legal protection in case you cause problems later on." Then, the person drinking gets to decide whether their privacy or that 11th drink is more important. That way, you won't bother people who aren't even close to be a problem (I generally have 1-2 drinks tops).
Is there any reason why the ISP can't set up some sort of SPAM filtering on their end?
Also, why not just set up the ISP's server as a backup server only? That way, you access your e-mail through the main server, which would make the mail go through your SPAM rules, right?
Sorry, somehow the mod rating me +1 Funny must have made you think this was a serious posting. :-)
It's decidedly off-topic, a quote from Spinal Tap
Had it been modded Offtopic -1, no doubt you would have realized that I wasn't actually advocating working coders to the bone.
After all, I am one.
Beck is often quoted for saying that the XP practices "turn the dial all the way up to 10" -- that is, if something is good (testing, integrating, pair programming etc), well then, let's do it all the time.
Nigel: "All the numbers go to 11..."
Director Marty Dibergi: "I see, and most amps go up to 10. Does that mean it's louder?"
Nigel: "Well, it's one louder, isn't it? You see, most blokes will be playing at 10...you're on 10 on your guitar. Where can you go from there?...Nowhere, exactly. So when we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?"
Marty: "Put it to 11."
Nigel: "Exactly. One louder."
Marty: "Why don't just make 10 louder and make 10 the top number and make that a little louder?"
Nigel (chewing gum, pauses while he considers the question, then states confidently): "These go to 11."
Actually, it seems that the PNAC was hoping for a "Pearl Harbor" like attack a year before 9-11.
So, yeah, people are crazy and dumb. What can I tell ya.
The problem isn't the law, per se. It's the problems that come up when this sort of law is applied in the same way to software as it is to more physical inventions. If I went in and tried to patent "A method for converting harvested grains to a flour substance", I'd be told that my patent wasn't specific enough. But I could patent "Using text and images for business on the Internet". Actually, I couldn't. PanIP already did that. Many years after the Internet, Amazon and all, were live and kicking. Prior art existed; why in the hell did they get that patent? There need to be technology specialists working in the PTO -- geeks like us who read Slashdot, who are paranoid about infringing on the rights of others and think through before just granting patents on anything to anyone.
In this case, the patent was put into place well before it was being used in actual browsers, so there isn't as much a prior art issue as a specificity issue. Generally, I think that because software can have such a broad application (imagine the hell we would live in if someone had patented the general concept of a database - "a data storage system with efficient retrieval systems" and so on) it is important to make sure that the language of the patent forces a company to work out its own solution to the problem, but doesn't prevent it from an entire branch of technological innovation.
Also, editors -- why isn't "Patents" one of the topics for this story? This is clearly taking place only because patents are being exercised; everybody here is talking about the patents. Listing this story under "Patents" will make sure that if someone is trying to look up or research examples of egregious patents being used as IP weapons (even against such a hated enemy/Slashdot sponsor as Microsoft).
Hey, guess what.
I was able to use your form to send myself spam!
That's right.
I entered my e-mail address, a from address, and the mail went through.
Essentially, your web page is providing the equivalent of an open relay.
You need to remove the "mailto" field, as that allows the form to be used to send out an address to anybody. Once that's gone, your form should be secure again.
No, no! When is even better! ...now mod me insightful!
Hmmm...
Okay, I'll bite.
Go ahead and do that search. Here, I'll make it easy for you.
I'd like you to notice that the hits all match what you wanted -- replacing a washer in a leaky faucet.
The whole point is that the "how" "to" "a" and "in " *are* common words, so they're not needed for a successful search. In fact, if you entered that as a phrase you'd be less likely to get effective results, because not everyone might phrase it the way you did, even though they're offering the information you want.
The only time I'm unsuccessful in a google search is when I'm looking for an exceptionally rare bug or problem in a software program. Then, it's not always clear what I should search for, and sometimes the specific error codes I get return 0 results.
probably went something like this...
*phone rings*
Matt: Hello?
VP: Hey there, Matt...so, what are you wearing?
Matt: *vomits noisily*
VP: That's it *pouts* You're fired.
Are you arguing that medicine should be subjective? I argue that it should be objective. A doctor's diagnosis and recommended treatment should be based on analysis of data (temperature, blood pressure, blood chemistry, mri's, whatever) using knowledge of diseases/conditions. If a task is objective, then it can be performed by a computer. Now if you want to argue that doctors should be subjective rather than objective, go right ahead, I will not entertain such nonsense.
First of all, where are the patients going to correctly assess their symptoms. If I have a headache, I don't know what steps to take to determine whether it's cause by malnutrition, dehydration, or a brain tumor. Typing in "My head hurts" into a computer and having 10,000 different potential ailments coming up won't help either. A big role for doctors and nurses is to correctly observe the symptoms of a patient and to determine which symptoms seem most important.
So, in order to have these databases do the trick, first you'd need to create amazingly complex diagnosis devices, that could scan a human being, measure every possible symptom, and punch all of the data it collected to determine whether that matrix of symptoms matched a disease.
Hmmmm...I'm sure you've heard about HMOs that won't let doctors perform MRIs or other types of machine scans without a good reason? That's because those cost a whole lot. So, imagine a machine that had the complexity required to perform a full diagnosis! A single scan would cost thousands of dollars! That's not saving money, that's losing money.
But all this igores the biggest cog in the wheel: the patients. I don't care if it's cheaper. If I was sick, I'd much rather talk to a doctor about it than a machine. I don't see a time in the foreseeable future when a majority of people will agree to trust their health or life to the calculations of a machine.
The "turn your head and cough" doctor is usually a general practitioner. As such, what they're supposed to be good at is communicating and connecting with their patients over a long period of time, sometimes that person's entire life. That doctor has a comprehensive understanding of the person's history, and also can understand what that person's attitudes towards health are. Generally, they don't make as much money as surgeons do.
Compettition among corporations will cause them to decrease prices. In a perfect market, this will continue until all providers charge the minimum possible.
$200 Nike shoes cost about $2 in materials and labor. But Nike charges a lot. One reason is that they spend a whole lot of money on advertising. In fact, most of the cost of a pair of shoes is the advertising money spent to sell them. If hospitals didn't spend money on doctors, they'd find something else to spend the money on.
Healthcare isn't expensive in the US because of the doctors. It's expensive because the corporations are out to make as much money as they can, and because people in the United States put a very high price on their lives and health, so they're willing to pay for it (or have someone else pay for it, since many of them are covered by health insurance).
Rocks?!? You were lucky to have rocks! All we had was an old dirt floor that we scratched with sticks. And if our handwriting wasn't neat, the schoolmaster would beat us and make us eat the stick. Rocks! Hmmph!
This stuff vs. the Super Big Gulp...
Someone with mod points mod this sucker up. Insightful, interesting, and informative.
Not funny though...
*glowers*
*cracking whip* Make us laugh, clown!
Actually, as I understand it, the latest versions of Flash have added many features centering on accessibility. That's not to say that XHTML isn't still *more* accessible, just that Flash is much better at this than it was.
Nope, WebFlix. He's from the UK or Ireland, you insensitive clod.
From his post:
If you are interested in testing this, email me offline.
Oh, okay. How do you want me to do that? Use smoke signals over TCP/IP?
I've never used *BSD, but all the propoganda I've read says that it has a built in Linux emulator. Wouldn't that make it easy to port?
Also, why bother using a card that requires some special driver? Every run of the mill Ethernet card that I've thrown in a box works just fine without any tweaking or downloading special drivers.
No, I know.
My point is that it was called a "classic" over 8 years ago -- an enternity for the Internet. That's how old it is.
You're talking about Ken Thompson's paper, "Reflections on Trusting Trust".
I don't believe this ever was a "famous hole in cc". Instead, Ken Thomspon merely pointed out that trust in the code you were compiling was not enough; you would have to trust the compiler as well, which inherently meant you had to trust the compiler compiling that compiler, and so on. Essentially the only compiler you could trust is one you wrote yourself in machine code, otherwise you can't be sure what its compiled, binary form contains.
Whether anyone ever acted on this potential exploit is up for further research, but for it to be effectively done in Open Source, it could only be executed on a per-machine basis. That is, they'd have to change the compiler on your machine, because if they put the exploit right in publically available source code, it wouldn't be too difficult to find it when the code was reviewed.
What I find interesting is that this is listed as a "Classic" article, and that page is dated 1995! This idea has been out for a while.
No?!?!?!
If I recall correctly, absentee votes were *crucial*. That's why there was the whole controversy about them -- military personel, who tend to be conservative, were encouraged to send in absentee ballots *after* the election, in order to get George Bush in office.
The Gore team worked to get every suspicious absentee ballot (i.e. unclear postmark) excluded, until Lieberman was asked on national TV if he felt that the votes of servicepeople shouldn't count (an unfair question, as it was clear that most of these votes were really illegal votes). He said no, of course not, and so they backed off of excluding these from the results.
Since then, ballots around the state have been counted and recounted, and ignoring the overvotes (gee, I wonder whether all those senior citizens were voting for Buchanan or Gore?!?), Bush may have had a slim majority of the votes. However, in the process that led to the whole Supreme Court rigamarole, the votes gleaned from absentee votes no doubt aided in strengthening the Bush position.
If Gore had simply managed to secure his own state, he would have been president. Also, I think the fact that he could "count" on the strong Democratic vote in Florida hurt him, since he didn't go down there to campaign much. He was depending on the votes of a bunch of Senior Citizens, who unfortunately got really confused by the butterfly ballot. Had he campaigned in Florida, it's possible he could have moved some people who voted for Nader or a third party to vote for him instead.
With the election this close, according to Florida election law the absentee votes should have been thrown out entirely. It's pretty clear that there should have been a runoff election in Florida, and there's no question in anyone's minds what would have happened the second time, assuming that they didn't use the same butterfly ballots that they'd used before.
We're putting a lot of emphasis on the inherent problems posed by poor security in electronic voting. What about the inherent problems posed by antiquitated voting machines and ballots with poor usability (i.e. the confusing Butterfly ballot)? As was seen in 2000, those problems will have a much larger effect.
Actually, there are incandescent bulbs (i.e., normal screw-in bulbs with filaments) that purport to offer "Full Spectrum" lighting. I think the issue isn't whether they're fluorescent or not; it has to do with the wavelenghts of light given off.