"Also most of the scientists I've meant in three separate colleges believed in a Creator of some kind."
Really?!?! Amazing. Well, I'm sold, some scientists that some schmuck met, at three (3!) separate colleges no less, believe it, then it must be science!
Science is not powered by belief. Science is powered by hypothesis, observation, and analysis. The only consistent observation I've heard from ID'ers is "The fossil record is incomplete". Everything else is one form or another of logical fallacy (conclusive assertions, false dichotomies, straw mans, etc...).
Security is about tradeoffs.
So, let's be clear. iFrame = bad, I agree with you.
But let's take it further, let's look at what you're getting. I've hit verified by visa a couple times, I always forget my password. In part, my standard repetoire of passwords don't work because it only accepts letters and numbers, my passwords often contain various symbols. In other words, the limitations on the password characters limit the number of possible passwords. Not great, though not as bad as the iframe thing.
So I use the "forgot your password" flow everytime. The genius thing about that is that it asks me stuff I'd already entered on the retailer's purchase form. There's no additional info required, it's all fairly standard "accessible" user profile info, but for the re-entering of the card details.
So, to be clear, from a quantitative aspect we have 1 bad and 1 "not so hot". But what have we gained?
Nothing!!! It's online security theatre. It's about as effective as a Dutch Airport security officer.
Indeed. You realise that the browsers you enumerated do not account for the majority of the market share, right? I'll give you a hint Micro_____. No wait, that's too obvious, how about _____soft?
So less than half of the browser market share has some (often incomplete) support for HTML5. Awesome, let me go recode all my sites now!
That's not the point. Advertising online is decidedly quantifiable, compared to other media. Ad placement is simply a pay-for-what-you-get.
They literally pay for ads served or clicked, not to buy a "high profile spot" (e.g. page 3 on the times, or the first commercial break during the superbowl and assume that it will be high traffic).
Your point, however, is about revenue models. Their revene models are obvious: subscription, ads, and as a value-ad for their cable subscription.
Given that a) subscriptions themselves have not materialised b) putting up a paywall has killed their advertising value and c) it's unlikely "free access to newsday content which we just stuck behind a paywall but is available from better sources for free" is a differentiator to potential cable subscribers, evidenced by the lack of subscriptions, I think they just committed bottom-line-sepuku.
Yes! If by "future" you mean "marginal enhancements to a decade old spec, solving problems that have already been fixed, and still isn't done yet, let alone supported" then yes, future indeed. I'm thoroughly prepared to have my mind blown by it, on the five example pages w3c will eventually put out. Phenomenal.
Only if their advertisers are dumb. Advertisers will pay only for real traffic, not potential traffic. Advertisers usually pay per click or per impression (ad served). Low traffic = ad revenue death in the online world.
I did not know that Steve Gutenberg wrote books. I thought he was just a skilled actor.
Ha! Look, everyone, it's a bot! You can tell, because no actual human being would have the words "Steve Gutenberg" and "skilled actor" in the same paragraph. Quick, add him to the magical template detection AI's list!
Men have a shorter life expectancy, also indicative of stronger pressure on the males of the species.
For example, if men tend to do more dangerous jobs (soldering, firefighting, etc...) this means the selective process among males is different, possibly harsher.
In other words, this is proof that men have it tougher than women, so my wife should quit her belly-achin' and bring me a sammich!!!
In the pilot, they should horsewhip and then shoot an unnamed director who commits the cultural crime of taking an amazing book and turning it into a shitastic movie.
The other setting I'd like to see expanded into new media is wh40k.
You're missing the point. He would have paid to get it in the format and on the device he wanted. The studio/distributor, through their channeling and windowing strategies, missed a rental customer.
The politicking of education an science seem to me to be the biggest threat/detriment. It's not just the corruption of knowledge and progress, it's the tolerance of it that begets more.
Well, I think this is more of a typical disconnect between academic types and more practical types.
Quantum crypto is an enhancement over current non-crypto methods, it is (for the moment) provably unbreakable. For most applications, the difference is trivial since (barring the NSA), breaking current encryption isn't impossible, so much as impractical in the extreme.
That's an interesting, if academic, point. As you mention, most compromises these days are not defeating the encryption algo, so much as social engineering or "side channel" attacks.
Somehow this got turned into "perfect security for electronic communication", which, clearly, it isn't. By academics, at least, I don't think it was billed that way though.
You're right. If you were a Yemeni, for example, and you thought your neighbour/acquaintance was planning something, who would you tell?
If you told the US they make think you're involved and drag you off to Gitmo for some water fun, but your own gov't is so corrupt even if you go to the local authorities, you risk telling someone involved, and getting killed. Much safer to keep your head down.
People say that it's up to moderate muslims to stop tolerating this, and to excise extremists from their midst, but many are not in a position to do this. Some are and don't which is a different story, but we need to make sure that those who would come forward with information can come forward without fear of reprisals against them or their family.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent informative please.
Just because Fars said it was a "us spy website" doesn't make it so, and in fact should lead one to believe it probably wasn't.
It's the circle of poo!
I'll see your beret and raise you a fez.
"Also most of the scientists I've meant in three separate colleges believed in a Creator of some kind."
Really?!?! Amazing. Well, I'm sold, some scientists that some schmuck met, at three (3!) separate colleges no less, believe it, then it must be science!
Science is not powered by belief. Science is powered by hypothesis, observation, and analysis. The only consistent observation I've heard from ID'ers is "The fossil record is incomplete". Everything else is one form or another of logical fallacy (conclusive assertions, false dichotomies, straw mans, etc...).
That would require reading, but he probably got some of his populist-angst-froth in his eyes, making this difficult.
It's not just Bing. You have to say BING!!! Like it's a bell. BING!!!
Say it! Fuck you, you're fired!!!
Security is about tradeoffs. So, let's be clear. iFrame = bad, I agree with you. But let's take it further, let's look at what you're getting. I've hit verified by visa a couple times, I always forget my password. In part, my standard repetoire of passwords don't work because it only accepts letters and numbers, my passwords often contain various symbols. In other words, the limitations on the password characters limit the number of possible passwords. Not great, though not as bad as the iframe thing. So I use the "forgot your password" flow everytime. The genius thing about that is that it asks me stuff I'd already entered on the retailer's purchase form. There's no additional info required, it's all fairly standard "accessible" user profile info, but for the re-entering of the card details. So, to be clear, from a quantitative aspect we have 1 bad and 1 "not so hot". But what have we gained? Nothing!!! It's online security theatre. It's about as effective as a Dutch Airport security officer.
You realise we're discussing HTML5, right?
It's a spec, not an app, authored by a consortium of people with, in some cases, questionable commitment to interoperability.
HTML5 is not an apple product. All your talk of polish on apple products is accurate but irrelevant.
Indeed. You realise that the browsers you enumerated do not account for the majority of the market share, right? I'll give you a hint Micro_____. No wait, that's too obvious, how about _____soft?
So less than half of the browser market share has some (often incomplete) support for HTML5. Awesome, let me go recode all my sites now!
That's not the point. Advertising online is decidedly quantifiable, compared to other media. Ad placement is simply a pay-for-what-you-get.
They literally pay for ads served or clicked, not to buy a "high profile spot" (e.g. page 3 on the times, or the first commercial break during the superbowl and assume that it will be high traffic).
Your point, however, is about revenue models. Their revene models are obvious: subscription, ads, and as a value-ad for their cable subscription.
Given that a) subscriptions themselves have not materialised b) putting up a paywall has killed their advertising value and c) it's unlikely "free access to newsday content which we just stuck behind a paywall but is available from better sources for free" is a differentiator to potential cable subscribers, evidenced by the lack of subscriptions, I think they just committed bottom-line-sepuku.
One wonders why.
Yes! If by "future" you mean "marginal enhancements to a decade old spec, solving problems that have already been fixed, and still isn't done yet, let alone supported" then yes, future indeed. I'm thoroughly prepared to have my mind blown by it, on the five example pages w3c will eventually put out. Phenomenal.
Only if their advertisers are dumb. Advertisers will pay only for real traffic, not potential traffic. Advertisers usually pay per click or per impression (ad served). Low traffic = ad revenue death in the online world.
No, not sure, no I don't, in that order
I was postulating, (demonstrated by the "if"), and also speaking in an immediate sense, per TFA, rather than a historical one.
A process on your machine is attempting to "crack wise about venerated Windows".
Would you like to deny or deny?
Ha! Look, everyone, it's a bot! You can tell, because no actual human being would have the words "Steve Gutenberg" and "skilled actor" in the same paragraph. Quick, add him to the magical template detection AI's list!
Yeah, kinda my point. Not sure why I got the troll bat though.
Obama was heard to remark "Heck of a job, Triley".
w00t, already half a dozen people pointing out my typo! Let's keep this going, I'm aiming for the barker's dozen!
It may also represent societal pressures on men.
Men have a shorter life expectancy, also indicative of stronger pressure on the males of the species.
For example, if men tend to do more dangerous jobs (soldering, firefighting, etc...) this means the selective process among males is different, possibly harsher.
In other words, this is proof that men have it tougher than women, so my wife should quit her belly-achin' and bring me a sammich!!!
Needs a show, true to the book.
In the pilot, they should horsewhip and then shoot an unnamed director who commits the cultural crime of taking an amazing book and turning it into a shitastic movie.
The other setting I'd like to see expanded into new media is wh40k.
You're missing the point. He would have paid to get it in the format and on the device he wanted. The studio/distributor, through their channeling and windowing strategies, missed a rental customer.
So, yet again, the best option: thepiratebay.org
The politicking of education an science seem to me to be the biggest threat/detriment. It's not just the corruption of knowledge and progress, it's the tolerance of it that begets more.
I heard he likes P-Stiddy
Well, I think this is more of a typical disconnect between academic types and more practical types.
Quantum crypto is an enhancement over current non-crypto methods, it is (for the moment) provably unbreakable. For most applications, the difference is trivial since (barring the NSA), breaking current encryption isn't impossible, so much as impractical in the extreme.
That's an interesting, if academic, point. As you mention, most compromises these days are not defeating the encryption algo, so much as social engineering or "side channel" attacks.
Somehow this got turned into "perfect security for electronic communication", which, clearly, it isn't. By academics, at least, I don't think it was billed that way though.
You're right. If you were a Yemeni, for example, and you thought your neighbour/acquaintance was planning something, who would you tell?
If you told the US they make think you're involved and drag you off to Gitmo for some water fun, but your own gov't is so corrupt even if you go to the local authorities, you risk telling someone involved, and getting killed. Much safer to keep your head down.
People say that it's up to moderate muslims to stop tolerating this, and to excise extremists from their midst, but many are not in a position to do this. Some are and don't which is a different story, but we need to make sure that those who would come forward with information can come forward without fear of reprisals against them or their family.