The problem I see is that javascript is just such a mess, and at the time was good idea as server side scripting was non-existant
It is still a good idea. You need both server and client side. If you can do it client side it saves a round trip to the server. I've written quite a few pages that work like this.
Don't allow webpages to open dialog boxes from Javascript
I just coded a page that required javascript dialog boxes. The problem is a little complex, so bear with me.
We managed stored documents. We store documents and some meta data (Revison, who uploaded it, that sort of thing). We recently put in place a security upgrade that casued some problems with IE. The problem is this: when we push down a document we actually open a new frameset, were one frame is the document itself and the other contains some meta data.
With the updates to IE this means that IE thinks that this is an unrequested download and shows a security bar asking if people want to download the file. This is obviously a problem for us.
We also occasionally have error messages that we need to display, for example someone trying to access a file that they don't have permission to see.
Put all this together and the best solution in our case (there are other complications which I don't want to go into) is to use some javascript to change both pages at once. One to point to a 1pix frame, and the other to a display page. The problem with this is that a 1 pix frame doesn't provide any space to show error messages, hence the need for dialogs.
There is actually a better way of getting rid of these rather than contaminating your code with unecessary #includes. Check this out. Basically add the same pragma command to YVALS.H which is in the include dir for the Visual studio installation.
In case you are wondering whether you are really going to break something, the error message relates to the debugger not being able to handle >255 chars.
The problem with this warning message is that it can obscure real error & warning messages.
You are a pretty contemptible piece of work. You fail to defend your position when you run up against serious opposition.
If you hold a position you must be willing to defend it. If you hunt through my comment history (you'll need to be a subscriber to see all of it) you'll see me defending my views on Abortion, a powder keg if ever there is one. Yet you canot even defend your candidate of choice.
I'd agree that Howard Dean was the candidate the Democrats should have had, but that doesn't answer the question. My mind was made up (I'm not a USian, so it is immaterial) in favour of Kerry when Dean bowed out.
As Winston Churchill said: "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons"
I certainly wouldn't go that far but I would support any reasonable candidate over Bush.
You want an outside view? Yes. To the rest of the world only an idiot would vote for Bush.
I've argued this point a couple of times. The only reason I can see for voting for Bush is that he is the more Christian candidate. I suggest you read my comment history to see what I think of that. Try this comment (and the thread) for size.1
To whoever modded this comment flambait, justify your moderation. Am I wrong?
I should add I code on a Microsoft platform for a living. I will defend Microsoft when they do right and are called out for it. I'm not subscriber, so I can't locate the exact comment I made but in the last month I made a comment on an article that rubbished Microsoft for the recent canonisation flaw in ASP.Net. I also run a linux file server @ Home, and linux box as a secondary desktop. I use what works and I call it as I see it.
1. There *were no WMD*. Intent is not the same as the crime. I cannot be prosecuted for crimes I have not committed. If desire to have WMD is a reason for invasion then you'd better get ready to invade the rest of the world. 2. A fair bit of the use of WMD on his population was using weapons supplied by the US, while Saddam was friends with the US. Get off the high horse.
Actually there are at least two links to terrorists and Al-Quaeda. Right before the war in Afghanistan, Sadam sent Bin Laden an invitation to allow him to stay there. Sadam also released some Al-Quaeda prisoners he was holding.
I'd like a link for both. This is certainly the first I've heard of it. You do realise that at one point Osama bin Laden was proposing to go to war with Iraq because it was too secular? Besides which, neither of the things you have proposed are signifigant links.
There are allies in Iraq
There are only three that count. Britian, Italy and Autralia. The rest are in there for the money. Is this a real coalition? Effectively the rest of the world is against it! That is what I call a coalition. Remember after 9/11 Chirac said "We are all Americans"? That was support. That support has be tossed on the garbage heap.
Oil for food is a scandal that has come *after* the alienation of allies.
Bush hasn't broken international law
He did. Kofi Annan gave a speech recently saying exactly that. The ground used to justify the invasion was shaky, to attempt to justfy the invasion you needed to cobble together all the resolutions to date and come up with someone that was not intended.
No country has ever stayed free with out a strong military, and the world has entered a time when we cannot wait for the first attack to happen to us
Europe has stayed pretty free for the past 50 years. Australia has been free for the past 200 hundred years (albeit with some support from Britian).
Besides that, I don't think you realise the implications of the docrtine of pre-emptive strike. It means that Nth Korea is justified in levelling Sth Korea *right now* because it fears an attack. It means that France is justified in attacking America becuase it fears an attack. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike is criminal, plain an simple. The law judges people on what they have done, now what they might do. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike effectively means might is right. Do you want that if the US declines on power? I think not.
Just to comment on the rest of your stuff:
Saddam was an evil man, no question. However weight Saddam in power, with what has happened now. Iraq is close to a civil war. Around 15,000 Iraqi civilians have died *at the hands of America*. Services (water, electricity) in the country are not as reliable as in Saddam's time. Did Saddam kill that many people each year? No.
Afghanistan is a different issue. The US did have reason to invade (even if it wasn't terribly well managed). I do hope that there is some success there, but I don't think it is likely. The country is still effectively divided up into areas of control by warlords. Opium production has soared, I believe that 70% of all opium is being produced out of Afghanistan.
He is a Christian, and he proudly lets his religous beliefs be known
He is a lawbreaker, a liar and has taken away civil liberties in America. We have had serious discussions around our family table as to whether he may be the man of lawlessness referred to in the bible. This is because there are two features that match: That he disregards the law and that he aims to gain power. Both fit to a T. Consider that for a moment.
He is against the murder of the innocent unborn children
I'm against that too. Indeed it see it as one of the most apalling scandals of our time. However I don't think you are going to see any changes on this one, no matter who gets in.
I would defend them, and you know why? They created my job, they are easy to overcome, and they simply do not effect the majority of bright individuals that use the net.
You are basically the same as the guy who the article was written about. "I've got a job out of it so I'm happy.
Either that or you are arguing that net should only be available for bright individuals (and by this I think you mean technically competent individuals).
The US Government faces stiff competition from Israel, Britain, Russia and France.
I'd agree with the other two, but I think you have made a mistake on Britian and France. I can't think of anything WRT to Britian, and for France the only things that come to mind are Algeria and Indo-China (later Vietnam and Cambodia). This doesn't quite compare to Russia, Isreal and the US.
Republican and proud of it. I don't read 2-bit hack news sources--especially ones I get from liberals (my friend). I have found such news sources to be full of so-called truths which are usually distorted.
Well as an outsider to US politics (no I'm not French, or even European, my country is one of the few that has supported yours in the "War on Terror", Geography question: Which country am I from?), it appears to me that all American news comes from 2-bit hack sources. The New York times is OK, but that is about it.
I've said it before, but I question the sanity of anyone who supports GWB. The only other explanation is that you have been brainwashed by the partisan "news sources" of the US.
Explain to me how George's war in Iraq is a good thing. 1. No WMD 2. No Al-Quaeda link (indeed no significant terrorist links)
Over this war George has alienated all of his allies, and he is even proud of it? What kind of logic is that! He has broken international Law. He has lied to the American people. By invading he has ensured that generations of arabs will have one more reason to hate America, he has sown dragons teeth.
Tell me again why George is a good man? Can you even tell me he is a Christian?
Before you write me off as some wacky liberal, note a few things that might surprise you: 1. I am a faithful, evangelical, bible believing Christian. My oposition of GWB comes directly from my beliefs as a Christian. 2. My entire family, of whom 5/6 of us are Christians, has the same views 3. We live the conservative heartland of my country, in a wealthy area. The area we have lived in is one of the safest conservative seats in parliment.
We all think GWB should go.
In fact in a recent coordinated survery around the world this view was confirmed by all countries except Israel (for obvious reasons).
Re:To commemorate Netscape's 10 year anniversary
on
Netscape Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
I first read your comment as suggesting we encapsulate our websites with the tag. I was trying to get a mental image of what that might look like.
The question was actually a twofold question. The first half asked when is it appropriate for leaders to change their opinions. The second half asked for an instance of them changing their opinion on an issue national importance.
None of the candidates answered the second and Bush didn't answer the first. Or rather by not answering, and given his actions he said there is no appropriate time to say you have made a mistake.
I understand the difficulty that being in election mode adds to the problem, however that doesn't change the fact that first question can be answered. In election time you pick an issue that is a dead issue, or one in which you all agree on, and use that.
Here is a good answer for Bush to give:
"If a mistake has been made it should be admitted. [blah blah]. Early in my administration we sought to disengage from the world to become less involved in peace keeping missions, and trouble spots around the world. Since 9/11 we realised the errors in this policy and have moved to engage issues around the world as they arisen. [spin on Afghanistan, sudan and to a lesser extent Iraq]"
This answers the question in a way that does not bring on controvesy. Everyone agrees that isolation is not a good policy, so why not make some hay out of the fact?
The fact that Bush cannot admit that he makes mistakes is a huge issue. He has appropriated the doctrine of Papal Infallability.
I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously. Given that, I'm not surprised that his speeches and his writing would differ.
I am not doubting that MS Press writes quality books.
I'm sorry, I missed your point.
I have found some of the MS Press books to be a little sophmoric in their use of language. The Windows Shell Scripting book was the last one I leafed through and I recall words like "cool" and (I think) "dude".
I have to say I don't really like that forced laid back jocular style. I don't think it adds to the book in any way.
I haven't looked at Writing Secure Code, but if it will help make the world a more secure place, I am for it.
I haven't read the 2nd edition. The first edition was pretty good except that it was very MS centric. Far more than was necessary. I think the 2nd edition is better. I think that Mark Curphrey who runs one of the Security focus mailing lists, is involved in the second release and I hear that it is better.
My point is that few people read the books and I see you agree.
There is nothing wrong with buying books you don't read. Well I guess there is, but if I admit it then I will have to read the 3 books on Java, one on TCl/Tk, one on regular expressions, and finish reading various books on.Net, C#, perl, software development techniques, STL...
SELECT client.name, client.id, product.id, product.name, product.price FROM client_table client JOIN product_table product ON client.id = product.client_id WHERE client.id = ? and product.discontinued = 0 ORDER BY product.price
Slashdot Mirror
The problem I see is that javascript is just such a mess, and at the time was good idea as server side scripting was non-existant
It is still a good idea. You need both server and client side. If you can do it client side it saves a round trip to the server. I've written quite a few pages that work like this.
Don't allow webpages to open dialog boxes from Javascript
I just coded a page that required javascript dialog boxes. The problem is a little complex, so bear with me.
We managed stored documents. We store documents and some meta data (Revison, who uploaded it, that sort of thing). We recently put in place a security upgrade that casued some problems with IE. The problem is this: when we push down a document we actually open a new frameset, were one frame is the document itself and the other contains some meta data.
With the updates to IE this means that IE thinks that this is an unrequested download and shows a security bar asking if people want to download the file. This is obviously a problem for us.
We also occasionally have error messages that we need to display, for example someone trying to access a file that they don't have permission to see.
Put all this together and the best solution in our case (there are other complications which I don't want to go into) is to use some javascript to change both pages at once. One to point to a 1pix frame, and the other to a display page. The problem with this is that a 1 pix frame doesn't provide any space to show error messages, hence the need for dialogs.
Blame the humans
/.
Well it seems to work in IT. The cluesless Luser line is used an awful lot here on
There is actually a better way of getting rid of these rather than contaminating your code with unecessary #includes. Check this out. Basically add the same pragma command to YVALS.H which is in the include dir for the Visual studio installation.
In case you are wondering whether you are really going to break something, the error message relates to the debugger not being able to handle >255 chars.
The problem with this warning message is that it can obscure real error & warning messages.
Answer this.
I note with interest that you are still using the same sig.
You are a pretty contemptible piece of work. You fail to defend your position when you run up against serious opposition.
If you hold a position you must be willing to defend it. If you hunt through my comment history (you'll need to be a subscriber to see all of it) you'll see me defending my views on Abortion, a powder keg if ever there is one. Yet you canot even defend your candidate of choice.
I'd agree that Howard Dean was the candidate the Democrats should have had, but that doesn't answer the question. My mind was made up (I'm not a USian, so it is immaterial) in favour of Kerry when Dean bowed out.
As Winston Churchill said:
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons"
I certainly wouldn't go that far but I would support any reasonable candidate over Bush.
Sure, I can understand that. We don't know in advance how people will perform. My question is, how are you going to vote *now*?
You want an outside view? Yes. To the rest of the world only an idiot would vote for Bush.
I've argued this point a couple of times. The only reason I can see for voting for Bush is that he is the more Christian candidate. I suggest you read my comment history to see what I think of that. Try this comment (and the thread) for size.1
All in front of a live, studio audience.... all of whom are cheering for Stewart. His *home audience*.
To whoever modded this comment flambait, justify your moderation. Am I wrong?
I should add I code on a Microsoft platform for a living. I will defend Microsoft when they do right and are called out for it. I'm not subscriber, so I can't locate the exact comment I made but in the last month I made a comment on an article that rubbished Microsoft for the recent canonisation flaw in ASP.Net. I also run a linux file server @ Home, and linux box as a secondary desktop. I use what works and I call it as I see it.
On your first points:
1. There *were no WMD*. Intent is not the same as the crime. I cannot be prosecuted for crimes I have not committed. If desire to have WMD is a reason for invasion then you'd better get ready to invade the rest of the world.
2. A fair bit of the use of WMD on his population was using weapons supplied by the US, while Saddam was friends with the US. Get off the high horse.
Actually there are at least two links to terrorists and Al-Quaeda. Right before the war in Afghanistan, Sadam sent Bin Laden an invitation to allow him to stay there. Sadam also released some Al-Quaeda prisoners he was holding.
I'd like a link for both. This is certainly the first I've heard of it. You do realise that at one point Osama bin Laden was proposing to go to war with Iraq because it was too secular? Besides which, neither of the things you have proposed are signifigant links.
There are allies in Iraq
There are only three that count. Britian, Italy and Autralia. The rest are in there for the money. Is this a real coalition? Effectively the rest of the world is against it! That is what I call a coalition. Remember after 9/11 Chirac said "We are all Americans"? That was support. That support has be tossed on the garbage heap.
Oil for food is a scandal that has come *after* the alienation of allies.
Bush hasn't broken international law
He did. Kofi Annan gave a speech recently saying exactly that. The ground used to justify the invasion was shaky, to attempt to justfy the invasion you needed to cobble together all the resolutions to date and come up with someone that was not intended.
No country has ever stayed free with out a strong military, and the world has entered a time when we cannot wait for the first attack to happen to us
Europe has stayed pretty free for the past 50 years. Australia has been free for the past 200 hundred years (albeit with some support from Britian).
Besides that, I don't think you realise the implications of the docrtine of pre-emptive strike. It means that Nth Korea is justified in levelling Sth Korea *right now* because it fears an attack. It means that France is justified in attacking America becuase it fears an attack. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike is criminal, plain an simple. The law judges people on what they have done, now what they might do. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike effectively means might is right. Do you want that if the US declines on power? I think not.
Just to comment on the rest of your stuff:
Saddam was an evil man, no question. However weight Saddam in power, with what has happened now. Iraq is close to a civil war. Around 15,000 Iraqi civilians have died *at the hands of America*. Services (water, electricity) in the country are not as reliable as in Saddam's time. Did Saddam kill that many people each year? No.
Afghanistan is a different issue. The US did have reason to invade (even if it wasn't terribly well managed). I do hope that there is some success there, but I don't think it is likely. The country is still effectively divided up into areas of control by warlords. Opium production has soared, I believe that 70% of all opium is being produced out of Afghanistan.
He is a Christian, and he proudly lets his religous beliefs be known
He is a lawbreaker, a liar and has taken away civil liberties in America. We have had serious discussions around our family table as to whether he may be the man of lawlessness referred to in the bible. This is because there are two features that match: That he disregards the law and that he aims to gain power. Both fit to a T. Consider that for a moment.
He is against the murder of the innocent unborn children
I'm against that too. Indeed it see it as one of the most apalling scandals of our time. However I don't think you are going to see any changes on this one, no matter who gets in.
Then there are the other reasons li
FTA
More has been invested in making IE secure than any browser on the planet by a long shot
And it is still the most insecure browser in common use. Impressive.
I would defend them, and you know why? They created my job, they are easy to overcome, and they simply do not effect the majority of bright individuals that use the net.
You are basically the same as the guy who the article was written about. "I've got a job out of it so I'm happy.
Either that or you are arguing that net should only be available for bright individuals (and by this I think you mean technically competent individuals).
I do like collecting foes.
The US Government faces stiff competition from Israel, Britain, Russia and France.
I'd agree with the other two, but I think you have made a mistake on Britian and France. I can't think of anything WRT to Britian, and for France the only things that come to mind are Algeria and Indo-China (later Vietnam and Cambodia). This doesn't quite compare to Russia, Isreal and the US.
Republican and proud of it. I don't read 2-bit hack news sources--especially ones I get from liberals (my friend). I have found such news sources to be full of so-called truths which are usually distorted.
Well as an outsider to US politics (no I'm not French, or even European, my country is one of the few that has supported yours in the "War on Terror", Geography question: Which country am I from?), it appears to me that all American news comes from 2-bit hack sources. The New York times is OK, but that is about it.
I've said it before, but I question the sanity of anyone who supports GWB. The only other explanation is that you have been brainwashed by the partisan "news sources" of the US.
Explain to me how George's war in Iraq is a good thing.
1. No WMD
2. No Al-Quaeda link (indeed no significant terrorist links)
Over this war George has alienated all of his allies, and he is even proud of it? What kind of logic is that! He has broken international Law. He has lied to the American people. By invading he has ensured that generations of arabs will have one more reason to hate America, he has sown dragons teeth.
Tell me again why George is a good man? Can you even tell me he is a Christian?
Before you write me off as some wacky liberal, note a few things that might surprise you:
1. I am a faithful, evangelical, bible believing Christian. My oposition of GWB comes directly from my beliefs as a Christian.
2. My entire family, of whom 5/6 of us are Christians, has the same views
3. We live the conservative heartland of my country, in a wealthy area. The area we have lived in is one of the safest conservative seats in parliment.
We all think GWB should go.
In fact in a recent coordinated survery around the world this view was confirmed by all countries except Israel (for obvious reasons).
I first read your comment as suggesting we encapsulate our websites with the tag. I was trying to get a mental image of what that might look like.
... an all female submarine crew would probably have higher moral than an all male crew
Unquestionably, particularly as women tend to be more moral than men.
I'm seeing a connection here.
.... hasn't heard of snopes ... doesn't know how to avoid getting pop-ups.
Republican voter
The only anomaly is the low UID.
The question was actually a twofold question. The first half asked when is it appropriate for leaders to change their opinions. The second half asked for an instance of them changing their opinion on an issue national importance.
None of the candidates answered the second and Bush didn't answer the first. Or rather by not answering, and given his actions he said there is no appropriate time to say you have made a mistake.
I understand the difficulty that being in election mode adds to the problem, however that doesn't change the fact that first question can be answered. In election time you pick an issue that is a dead issue, or one in which you all agree on, and use that.
Here is a good answer for Bush to give:
"If a mistake has been made it should be admitted. [blah blah]. Early in my administration we sought to disengage from the world to become less involved in peace keeping missions, and trouble spots around the world. Since 9/11 we realised the errors in this policy and have moved to engage issues around the world as they arisen. [spin on Afghanistan, sudan and to a lesser extent Iraq]"
This answers the question in a way that does not bring on controvesy. Everyone agrees that isolation is not a good policy, so why not make some hay out of the fact?
The fact that Bush cannot admit that he makes mistakes is a huge issue. He has appropriated the doctrine of Papal Infallability.
How do you end up with a 5 digit UID and not know what snopes is? Have you hijacked someon't account?
Everyone should be able to admit they have made mistakes. No exceptions.
I believe Bush has some sort of speech impediment and a difficulty speaking extemporaneously. Given that, I'm not surprised that his speeches and his writing would differ.
Not having a brain tends to do that to people...
I am not doubting that MS Press writes quality books.
.Net, C#, perl, software development techniques, STL...
I'm sorry, I missed your point.
I have found some of the MS Press books to be a little sophmoric in their use of language. The Windows Shell Scripting book was the last one I leafed through and I recall words like "cool" and (I think) "dude".
I have to say I don't really like that forced laid back jocular style. I don't think it adds to the book in any way.
I haven't looked at Writing Secure Code, but if it will help make the world a more secure place, I am for it.
I haven't read the 2nd edition. The first edition was pretty good except that it was very MS centric. Far more than was necessary. I think the 2nd edition is better. I think that Mark Curphrey who runs one of the Security focus mailing lists, is involved in the second release and I hear that it is better.
My point is that few people read the books and I see you agree.
There is nothing wrong with buying books you don't read. Well I guess there is, but if I admit it then I will have to read the 3 books on Java, one on TCl/Tk, one on regular expressions, and finish reading various books on
Or in the more recent join sytax:
SELECT client.name, client.id, product.id, product.name, product.price
FROM client_table client
JOIN product_table product ON
client.id = product.client_id
WHERE client.id = ? and product.discontinued = 0
ORDER BY product.price