North and south also refer to magnetic poles. North is generally assumed to be the positive pole, and south the negative, though when poles flip, as happens on earth (every one million years I think), and the sun (every 11 years or so, sometimes refered to as a period of solar maxima), common usage north and south probably won't switch. Wikipedia has a bit more info.
There's also galactic north and south, which are imaginary axes perpendicular to the the plane of the galaxy. Again, wikipedia has more info.
I'd hazard that what this article refers to as north is probably some assumed "solar north" roughly parallel to Earth's north.
So they went out and bought the rights to a developed universe so they could rewrite it?
It seems they just shelled out a ton of money for brand-recognition.
Agreed, but that isn't a problem with the format. Unless the format is focused on visual appearance as opposed to semantic structure (the document version of bold, font, linebreak tags in HMTL), the problem lies in the applications.
Put it another way; if an application were to be released tomorrow that used
ODF and integrated well with assistive tech's, the problem would be resolved, n'est-ce pas?
Because there's no innaccessible ODF-enabled apps (assuming that's even true, others above have pointed out that MS Word can/will be able to export to ODF), innaccessible apps does not imply innaccessible document format.
Part of the maturing process for OO.org et al. is improved accessibility and support for/integration with assistive technologies.
Granted, since there are very few trial/evaluation/testing versions of screen readers available, and most screen reader tutorial or reference material is anecdotal (eg articles) as opposed to authoritative (eg API documentation), implies that the screen reader providers have some work to do in helping the industry help them.
"... fade into snowy wooded glade, midafternoon. Lots of conieforus trees, bunnies hopping around, mountains in background, stone veranda visible on mountains. Focus on two wagons, with sevral dwarves standing by them.
The main protagonist Urmomishot approaches the dwarves.
Dwarf1: !
Dwarf2: !
Dwarf3: !
Urmomishot approaches Dwarf1
Dwarf1: Those hundreds of troggs over there have been giving me grief, please go kill 10 of them.
Urmomishot approaches Dwarf2
Dwarf2: I have to deliver a package 30 metres down the road, but I'm lazy. Do it for me.
Urmomishot approaches Dwarf3
Dwarf3: I need 15 pieces of wolfhide to make you a shirt you don't need. Go get me the hide.
A gnome runs up.
Gnome: Hey can u spar soem copr? kthxbye..."
I do most of my news browsing at work, where several hundred people show up as one IP (home computer is exclusively for WoW).
Besides, the assumption that stated unique visitors = actual unique ip's is innacurate. Lots of companies track users with some kind of UID cookie, for more accurate stats. True, this isn't perfect either, and will reset when users wipe their cookies or it expires, but is probably closer to the real number than ip's.
"The Nintendo marketing department hasn't gaffed, they've had a resounding success. They're generating buzz and "word-o-o-mouth" (even if it is online word-o-mouth), which is what marketing is all about"
Given the amount of babble on the net about this, and the 4 Slashdot articles in the last four business days, I'd say that Wii is thus far a complete and total success.
People knock their marketing department because it can be construed as urine, but you know what? We're all talking about = they win.
People who say they should have left it as revolution (I like revolution too, don't get me wrong), have missed the point. The Nintendo marketing department has gaffed, they've had a resounding success. They're generating buzz and "word-o-o-mouth" (even if it is online word-o-mouth), which is what marketing is all about.
Well, it's all of them really. Look, security, to some degree, is a numbers game. Nothing is perfectly secure. It's about reducing the ease of exploitation. Coverting from GET to POST is EASY, and, clearly, less people know how to create a POST as opposed to a GET.
To analyse a POST, one needs: knowledge of HTML and javascript, and to spend time reading the source of the form in question to figure out what the post looks like.
To create a fake POST, one needs: knowledge of how HTTP headers work, and either telnet knwoledge or a firefox extension (courtesy of post below).
To analyse a GET, one needs: a browser
To create a fake GET, one needs: a browser.
To convert from GET to POST does NOT make you app secure. However, it'll reduce the number of phony requests you have to deal with.
I thhink what the author meant was that GET requests are easier to muck with.
We all know someone with malicious intent and a modicum of knowledge canfarily easily fake either, and the incremental difficulty from of POST as compared to GET is negligible.
However, a bored 13 year old, with minimal knwoledge, can easily muck with a GET, not so much with a POST. A POST requires a bit more know-how, hence limiting the user base that has the ability to dick around with your site, hence offering greater security.
You forgot "Perpetual beta", one of the key "selling points" of "Web 2.0". However, the people who would buy into both the BS of Web 2.0 and "perpetual beta" (aka "perpetual bugs") deserve what they get. Happy investing folks, I'm gonna go find a stiff drink.
When you guys design it, assign specific parts to him.
When he gets something wrong, don't redo it, don't tell him "No, do it like this", ask him why he chose that, and did he consider such and such.
Same stuff with coding; why did you do this in this fashion? Did you consider xyz? Which do you think is better? why? And don't just do it with stuff he gets worng, do it with stuff he gets right.
And, if after all that he chooses one way and you would have chosen another, let him "win".
Jerry said:I am computer literate! Jerry meant: See, I can spell "computer" correctly
Jerry said:I have 22 years in computer systems engineering and operation. Jerry meant: I have been using wordprocessors for 22 years, and once I had to plug a computer in!
You point out some key gaps in many OSS that are part of the problem, but I attribute these to immaturity. Lack of proper documentation is a sign of an immature product.
However, enterprises are often faced with the following choices:
- build it myself: will cost a fair bit, I will be running code tested only via whatever testing I do. Time consuming, and costly if my inhouse development proves not up to the task
- build on top of OSS: leverage pre-existing OSS software. Still has a lot of dependence on inhouse dev, but there'll be a knowledge base, to some degree, regarding the product.
- buy it: buy an "out-of-the-box" solution. On thing about "out-of-the-box" solutions: they never are. And most software providers, once you've bought their license (ie once they've got your money), aren't interested in working too hard towards integration. You become "locked in" in that once you've invested in their implementation, the cost of rreplacing it means they'd have to practically burn down your offices before you'd ditch them.
Open source is not the be-all, end-all of software, but for many problems, the cost factor, especially for mature OSS or companies with highly competent inhouse dev, is too enticing. Don't expect banks to buy GenericOpenDatabase 1.0 for their transactional software, bnut their XML parser, for example, could very well be a mature OSS.
Open source will always be under the shadows of immaturity and fear of reverse engineering. However, open source does have something going for it: price.
The relatively minimal costs of open source versus not will continue to be an upward pressure on their implementation.
The conclusions in the article ignore this, and are, imo, flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, tools lose you!
This seems to incorporate strong elements of social networking. I guess that makes this Xenophobia2.0 ?
"Hey Akbar, just calling to let you know Mohamed and Alimah just had a healthy baby boy!"
"Oh great, I'll let the family over here know!"
*meanwhile, in the basement of a bunker somewhere*
"My God! It's nine eleven times ten thousand! Nine million one hundred and ten thousand!"
What they should have done is patent "Web 2.0"....
North and south also refer to magnetic poles. North is generally assumed to be the positive pole, and south the negative, though when poles flip, as happens on earth (every one million years I think), and the sun (every 11 years or so, sometimes refered to as a period of solar maxima), common usage north and south probably won't switch. Wikipedia has a bit more info.
There's also galactic north and south, which are imaginary axes perpendicular to the the plane of the galaxy. Again, wikipedia has more info.
I'd hazard that what this article refers to as north is probably some assumed "solar north" roughly parallel to Earth's north.
So they went out and bought the rights to a developed universe so they could rewrite it? It seems they just shelled out a ton of money for brand-recognition.
Agreed, but that isn't a problem with the format. Unless the format is focused on visual appearance as opposed to semantic structure (the document version of bold, font, linebreak tags in HMTL), the problem lies in the applications.
Put it another way; if an application were to be released tomorrow that used ODF and integrated well with assistive tech's, the problem would be resolved, n'est-ce pas?
Because there's no innaccessible ODF-enabled apps (assuming that's even true, others above have pointed out that MS Word can/will be able to export to ODF), innaccessible apps does not imply innaccessible document format.
Part of the maturing process for OO.org et al. is improved accessibility and support for/integration with assistive technologies.
Granted, since there are very few trial/evaluation/testing versions of screen readers available, and most screen reader tutorial or reference material is anecdotal (eg articles) as opposed to authoritative (eg API documentation), implies that the screen reader providers have some work to do in helping the industry help them.
"... fade into snowy wooded glade, midafternoon. Lots of conieforus trees, bunnies hopping around, mountains in background, stone veranda visible on mountains. Focus on two wagons, with sevral dwarves standing by them. The main protagonist Urmomishot approaches the dwarves. Dwarf1: ! Dwarf2: ! Dwarf3: ! Urmomishot approaches Dwarf1 Dwarf1: Those hundreds of troggs over there have been giving me grief, please go kill 10 of them. Urmomishot approaches Dwarf2 Dwarf2: I have to deliver a package 30 metres down the road, but I'm lazy. Do it for me. Urmomishot approaches Dwarf3 Dwarf3: I need 15 pieces of wolfhide to make you a shirt you don't need. Go get me the hide. A gnome runs up. Gnome: Hey can u spar soem copr? kthxbye ..."
I do most of my news browsing at work, where several hundred people show up as one IP (home computer is exclusively for WoW).
Besides, the assumption that stated unique visitors = actual unique ip's is innacurate. Lots of companies track users with some kind of UID cookie, for more accurate stats. True, this isn't perfect either, and will reset when users wipe their cookies or it expires, but is probably closer to the real number than ip's.
That should read:
"The Nintendo marketing department hasn't gaffed, they've had a resounding success. They're generating buzz and "word-o-o-mouth" (even if it is online word-o-mouth), which is what marketing is all about"
Mental note: use the preview fucntion next time.
Given the amount of babble on the net about this, and the 4 Slashdot articles in the last four business days, I'd say that Wii is thus far a complete and total success.
People knock their marketing department because it can be construed as urine, but you know what? We're all talking about = they win.
People who say they should have left it as revolution (I like revolution too, don't get me wrong), have missed the point. The Nintendo marketing department has gaffed, they've had a resounding success. They're generating buzz and "word-o-o-mouth" (even if it is online word-o-mouth), which is what marketing is all about.
Do I still get in trouble if I get caught reading this article by my boss?
Who to believe, Variety or Fark....
I think it's Ministry of Peace.
Well, it's all of them really. Look, security, to some degree, is a numbers game. Nothing is perfectly secure. It's about reducing the ease of exploitation. Coverting from GET to POST is EASY, and, clearly, less people know how to create a POST as opposed to a GET.
To analyse a POST, one needs: knowledge of HTML and javascript, and to spend time reading the source of the form in question to figure out what the post looks like.
To create a fake POST, one needs: knowledge of how HTTP headers work, and either telnet knwoledge or a firefox extension (courtesy of post below).
To analyse a GET, one needs: a browser
To create a fake GET, one needs: a browser.
To convert from GET to POST does NOT make you app secure. However, it'll reduce the number of phony requests you have to deal with.
I thhink what the author meant was that GET requests are easier to muck with.
We all know someone with malicious intent and a modicum of knowledge canfarily easily fake either, and the incremental difficulty from of POST as compared to GET is negligible.
However, a bored 13 year old, with minimal knwoledge, can easily muck with a GET, not so much with a POST. A POST requires a bit more know-how, hence limiting the user base that has the ability to dick around with your site, hence offering greater security.
You forgot "Perpetual beta", one of the key "selling points" of "Web 2.0". However, the people who would buy into both the BS of Web 2.0 and "perpetual beta" (aka "perpetual bugs") deserve what they get. Happy investing folks, I'm gonna go find a stiff drink.
OMG! Hot Creep Mod forthcoming that will earn the ire of Senator Clinton and Jack Thomson.
When you guys design it, assign specific parts to him.
When he gets something wrong, don't redo it, don't tell him "No, do it like this", ask him why he chose that, and did he consider such and such.
Same stuff with coding; why did you do this in this fashion? Did you consider xyz? Which do you think is better? why? And don't just do it with stuff he gets worng, do it with stuff he gets right.
And, if after all that he chooses one way and you would have chosen another, let him "win".
Jerry said: I am computer literate!
Jerry meant: See, I can spell "computer" correctly
Jerry said: I have 22 years in computer systems engineering and operation.
Jerry meant: I have been using wordprocessors for 22 years, and once I had to plug a computer in!
holla! I particularly liked the questing in Reno in Fallout 2, where you have to infiltrate and take down the mob.
It should actually read "HD Disc adoption scrwed by HD Disc Rules" Fantastic way to shut themselves out of a significant portion of the market.
You point out some key gaps in many OSS that are part of the problem, but I attribute these to immaturity. Lack of proper documentation is a sign of an immature product. However, enterprises are often faced with the following choices: - build it myself: will cost a fair bit, I will be running code tested only via whatever testing I do. Time consuming, and costly if my inhouse development proves not up to the task - build on top of OSS: leverage pre-existing OSS software. Still has a lot of dependence on inhouse dev, but there'll be a knowledge base, to some degree, regarding the product. - buy it: buy an "out-of-the-box" solution. On thing about "out-of-the-box" solutions: they never are. And most software providers, once you've bought their license (ie once they've got your money), aren't interested in working too hard towards integration. You become "locked in" in that once you've invested in their implementation, the cost of rreplacing it means they'd have to practically burn down your offices before you'd ditch them. Open source is not the be-all, end-all of software, but for many problems, the cost factor, especially for mature OSS or companies with highly competent inhouse dev, is too enticing. Don't expect banks to buy GenericOpenDatabase 1.0 for their transactional software, bnut their XML parser, for example, could very well be a mature OSS.
Open source will always be under the shadows of immaturity and fear of reverse engineering. However, open source does have something going for it: price.
The relatively minimal costs of open source versus not will continue to be an upward pressure on their implementation.
The conclusions in the article ignore this, and are, imo, flawed.