SPF isn't an AOL thing. It's something created independently and several people, most notably Meng Weng Wong, are working hard to make it a standard
Let's hope they fail miserably. The problem with SPF (and all other designated mailhost "solutions") is that it breaks forwarding, including mailing lists. In order for me, from a small vanity domain, to send mail under SPF, I need to list every single domain name that might be used by a mailing list I send to. For a techy geek that's easily a dozen hosts. But the SPF standard says that all mail hosts they designate as acceptable are included in my list of "allowed mail hosts". That's necessary, otherwise legitimate mail could be binned. The transitive closure of all the mailhosts I'm approving is potentially huge, and potentially includes many hosts I will never use.
The alternative is to take the AOL approach and say "our users aren't allowed to use mailing lists". Which is clearly bollocks.
SPF is a non-starter. Sounds good until you think about it. The best solution to sender verification is digital certificates - either short-lived or revokable.
In a regular week with no cash spent on toys, I probably pay about $200 on sales taxes
$200 in VAT means you're spending something of the order of $1200 a week. After food, which is VAT free.
upward of $700 getting taken off my wages every week.
Which gives you a pre-tax income of about two grand a week, or a cool $100,000 a year.
What, are we supposed to feel sorry for you?
I refuse to piss away any more money on money-grabbing fucking middlemen... I'll support the artists I like by going to their concerts
Yeah, because the artists get every penny from a gig. By the time the promoters, roadies, ticket agents, venue, hotels, transport, etc. have all had a bite of the pie most artists get very little from gigs. Only time most artists get money is when someone buys a t-shirt.
Unfortunately it is. The vast majority of orders from Hungary are fraudulant. Faked cards, cloned cards, stolen cards, disputed transactions. No one on the web (whether American or not) will sell to Hungary if they have any sense - the occasional genuine customer just isn't worth the hundreds of fraudsters.
Instead of bitching on Slashdot, do something useful. Like campaigning for Hungarian law enforcement to crack down on those who make it impossible for you to use e-commerce sites...
How can misbehaving sysadmins be stopped? Only by catching them. About the only hope I can see is to regularly checksum the executables on your system. Anything changing is a candidate for problems. A good sysadmin should be logging the changes he's making, so anything that is being deliberatly hidden will stick out like a sore thumb. Random audits on the code you know has been changed might catch a problem, and will at least scare most people into behaving. Should also help to catch crackers.
Only problem - who conducts the audits, runs the checksum programs, checks the logs, etc? That'll be another sysadmin. Division of responsibility is the key here - each sysadmin is god on these systems and watchman on those.
Okay, a good point. Not something that any popular browser actually allows, as far as I'm aware, but something to aim for in the future.
But (you knew there was a but, didn't you) is this really different from, say, wanting to position a nav bar at the right or bottom of the screen, rather than the left or top? I still don't see your example as not defining a physical relationship. You are still defining that this cell is a member of this column and this row, and are still defining that the data is being presented in a tabular layout. The changes being allowed are fairly minor, at least compared to what should be possible if we had a true content/presentation seperation.
XHTML tags & attributes are supposed to be lower-case
Which is one of the best reasons for not being 100% XHTML compliant. Lots of us would rather use upper case tags - it simply makes the code easier to read. But, no, we have to standardise on something that makes no difference at all to the functionality, just so that someone else's prefered coding style can be enforced on us.
Next they'll be specifying the size of the tab stops.
Your browser chose to draw that headline in a huge 72pt typeface, his XHTML didn't.
But it is predictable that most web browsers will chose to draw that headline at 72pt. Design decisions cannot be divorced from content structural decisions. Telling someone it is their fault that your page looks bad is not an option in the real world.
Now, in this case the guy may not have the ability to include a CSS, although I'm not sure why, or Slashdot may have chosen not to give us the one he did include.
Back in reality, web pages are used to market ideas, products, services, etc. A good visual impression is part of that. Turning round and saying "your browser isn't good enough" is not acceptable - while you're making that point, the customer is off shopping elsewhere.
Now, I'm not suggesting that web pages shouldn't aim for the perfect "content in HTML, presentation in CSS" split, but an attitude of "my code is valid, fix your browser" makes your page as inaccessible as anything else.
He did? I'll bet that comes as a shock to Nicolas Cugnot, Issac de Rivaz, Jean Etienne Lenoir, Nikolaus August Otto, Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, and all the others who were involved in inventing, building and developing cars before Ford came along. Or at least it would come as a shock if they weren't all dead.
Tables as tables are fine -- the problem is that very, very few tables on most GUI-tool-designed-websites are actually tables of data.
Okay, this is one that has puzzled me for some time now. I've often heard the idea that web designers shouldn't use tables for page layout, but css layers instead. Now, the main justification for using tables is that a large proportion of web surfers don't use a browser that properly supports layers. (The argument that they should use a better browser counts for exactly nothing in the real world...) But my question is:
What exactly is a table for, if not page layout? As far as I can see, the only purpose of a table is to define the physical relationship of different pieces of content.
Now I'm all in favour of a clean division of content in the html and presentation in the css, but (even ignoring the current problems of making a site look good on most browsers) there are going to be some tags - such as table - which are going to cross that boundary.
Spell check is two words, "vs" should have a period, and you misspelled "recognize".
"Recognise" and "recognise" are both correct. Americans favour one, the British the other. Neither are wrong. You're right about the importance of spelling in Slashdot though.
"An individual who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion."
(The Jargon File)
This seems to match your behaviour pretty well.
You are taking my point and passing it off as your own!
No. Your point was "I'm glad a TV program I didn't like has been cancelled" for which you offered no reason other than "Farscape sucks". When people criticised you for the selfish little bore you are, you claimed this was because we all wanted you to think the same as we do. Not true. I couldn't care less whether you like Farscape or not. My objection to you is that you take pleasure in someone else's misery.
By desiring programs you dislike to be cancelled for no reason than that you dislike them you are attempting to force the rest of us to only watch programs you like. i.e. Forcing us to conform to your opinions.
Note, also, that at no point have I actually expressed an opinion on Farscape itself, only on you reaction to its demise.
How exactly does stating my opinion show how selfish I am (one way or the other)?
You don't like Farscape. Fair comment. You're glad it was cancelled. That makes you selfish. Enjoying someone else's misery is selfish, if not down right nasty.
If you don't like Farscape, don't watch it. But taking pleasure in the cancellation of a program that millions of people enjoyed is selfish.
It's really a waste of time to point out how you don't understand the concept of intolerance...but it's hilarious. You might as well have said "I'm totally intolerant of intolerant people!!!". You'll learn this next year in 5th grade.
Wow, what a stirling put down. I'm quivering in fear of your intellectual skills here. "You're intolerant of intolerant people" is the punch line of an old Dilbert joke, and wasn't terribly good then. I'm intolerant of intolerant people? Yeah. I am. I also hate bigots, racists, etc. Don't make me a bad person...
Slashdot Mirror
the book was actually the third generation of the story.
Second. The novel predates the TV series.
SPF isn't an AOL thing. It's something created independently and several people, most notably Meng Weng Wong, are working hard to make it a standard
Let's hope they fail miserably. The problem with SPF (and all other designated mailhost "solutions") is that it breaks forwarding, including mailing lists. In order for me, from a small vanity domain, to send mail under SPF, I need to list every single domain name that might be used by a mailing list I send to. For a techy geek that's easily a dozen hosts. But the SPF standard says that all mail hosts they designate as acceptable are included in my list of "allowed mail hosts". That's necessary, otherwise legitimate mail could be binned. The transitive closure of all the mailhosts I'm approving is potentially huge, and potentially includes many hosts I will never use.
The alternative is to take the AOL approach and say "our users aren't allowed to use mailing lists". Which is clearly bollocks.
SPF is a non-starter. Sounds good until you think about it. The best solution to sender verification is digital certificates - either short-lived or revokable.
In a regular week with no cash spent on toys, I probably pay about $200 on sales taxes
... I'll support the artists I like by going to their concerts
$200 in VAT means you're spending something of the order of $1200 a week. After food, which is VAT free.
upward of $700 getting taken off my wages every week.
Which gives you a pre-tax income of about two grand a week, or a cool $100,000 a year.
What, are we supposed to feel sorry for you?
I refuse to piss away any more money on money-grabbing fucking middlemen
Yeah, because the artists get every penny from a gig. By the time the promoters, roadies, ticket agents, venue, hotels, transport, etc. have all had a bite of the pie most artists get very little from gigs. Only time most artists get money is when someone buys a t-shirt.
Sad really.
CD-Wow's prices included VAT
No, they don't. Buy anything over 18 and you'll get stung for the VAT, plus a hefty royal mail clearance fee, when it enters the country.
No, that's not it
Unfortunately it is. The vast majority of orders from Hungary are fraudulant. Faked cards, cloned cards, stolen cards, disputed transactions. No one on the web (whether American or not) will sell to Hungary if they have any sense - the occasional genuine customer just isn't worth the hundreds of fraudsters.
Instead of bitching on Slashdot, do something useful. Like campaigning for Hungarian law enforcement to crack down on those who make it impossible for you to use e-commerce sites...
How can misbehaving sysadmins be stopped? Only by catching them. About the only hope I can see is to regularly checksum the executables on your system. Anything changing is a candidate for problems. A good sysadmin should be logging the changes he's making, so anything that is being deliberatly hidden will stick out like a sore thumb. Random audits on the code you know has been changed might catch a problem, and will at least scare most people into behaving. Should also help to catch crackers.
Only problem - who conducts the audits, runs the checksum programs, checks the logs, etc? That'll be another sysadmin. Division of responsibility is the key here - each sysadmin is god on these systems and watchman on those.
Okay, a good point. Not something that any popular browser actually allows, as far as I'm aware, but something to aim for in the future.
But (you knew there was a but, didn't you) is this really different from, say, wanting to position a nav bar at the right or bottom of the screen, rather than the left or top? I still don't see your example as not defining a physical relationship. You are still defining that this cell is a member of this column and this row, and are still defining that the data is being presented in a tabular layout. The changes being allowed are fairly minor, at least compared to what should be possible if we had a true content/presentation seperation.
XHTML tags & attributes are supposed to be lower-case
Which is one of the best reasons for not being 100% XHTML compliant. Lots of us would rather use upper case tags - it simply makes the code easier to read. But, no, we have to standardise on something that makes no difference at all to the functionality, just so that someone else's prefered coding style can be enforced on us.
Next they'll be specifying the size of the tab stops.
Your browser chose to draw that headline in a huge 72pt typeface, his XHTML didn't.
But it is predictable that most web browsers will chose to draw that headline at 72pt. Design decisions cannot be divorced from content structural decisions. Telling someone it is their fault that your page looks bad is not an option in the real world.
Now, in this case the guy may not have the ability to include a CSS, although I'm not sure why, or Slashdot may have chosen not to give us the one he did include.
Back in reality, web pages are used to market ideas, products, services, etc. A good visual impression is part of that. Turning round and saying "your browser isn't good enough" is not acceptable - while you're making that point, the customer is off shopping elsewhere.
Now, I'm not suggesting that web pages shouldn't aim for the perfect "content in HTML, presentation in CSS" split, but an attitude of "my code is valid, fix your browser" makes your page as inaccessible as anything else.
(1) well [Henry Ford] did invent the car
He did? I'll bet that comes as a shock to Nicolas Cugnot, Issac de Rivaz, Jean Etienne Lenoir, Nikolaus August Otto, Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler, and all the others who were involved in inventing, building and developing cars before Ford came along. Or at least it would come as a shock if they weren't all dead.
Okay, this is one that has puzzled me for some time now. I've often heard the idea that web designers shouldn't use tables for page layout, but css layers instead. Now, the main justification for using tables is that a large proportion of web surfers don't use a browser that properly supports layers. (The argument that they should use a better browser counts for exactly nothing in the real world...) But my question is
What exactly is a table for, if not page layout? As far as I can see, the only purpose of a table is to define the physical relationship of different pieces of content.
Now I'm all in favour of a clean division of content in the html and presentation in the css, but (even ignoring the current problems of making a site look good on most browsers) there are going to be some tags - such as table - which are going to cross that boundary.
Thoughts anyone?
Spell check is two words, "vs" should have a period, and you misspelled "recognize".
"Recognise" and "recognise" are both correct. Americans favour one, the British the other. Neither are wrong. You're right about the importance of spelling in Slashdot though.
Please refrain from the insensitive use of the word 'nigger'
Er, no one did. The word was "nigerian", as in the country "Nigeria".
Perhaps you should read more carefully before getting offended?
"troll"
"An individual who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion."
(The Jargon File)
This seems to match your behaviour pretty well.
You are taking my point and passing it off as your own!
No. Your point was "I'm glad a TV program I didn't like has been cancelled" for which you offered no reason other than "Farscape sucks". When people criticised you for the selfish little bore you are, you claimed this was because we all wanted you to think the same as we do. Not true. I couldn't care less whether you like Farscape or not. My objection to you is that you take pleasure in someone else's misery.
By desiring programs you dislike to be cancelled for no reason than that you dislike them you are attempting to force the rest of us to only watch programs you like. i.e. Forcing us to conform to your opinions.
Note, also, that at no point have I actually expressed an opinion on Farscape itself, only on you reaction to its demise.
You're probably sitting there all upset because I don't agree with you
Never minded people disagreeing with me. We'd all be watching celebrity big brother and listening to britney spears if we all agreed. Who cares?
What makes you a troll is the desire to enforce your opinions on others.
How exactly does stating my opinion show how selfish I am (one way or the other)?
You don't like Farscape. Fair comment. You're glad it was cancelled. That makes you selfish. Enjoying someone else's misery is selfish, if not down right nasty.
If you don't like Farscape, don't watch it. But taking pleasure in the cancellation of a program that millions of people enjoyed is selfish.
It's really a waste of time to point out how you don't understand the concept of intolerance...but it's hilarious. You might as well have said "I'm totally intolerant of intolerant people!!!". You'll learn this next year in 5th grade.
Wow, what a stirling put down. I'm quivering in fear of your intellectual skills here. "You're intolerant of intolerant people" is the punch line of an old Dilbert joke, and wasn't terribly good then. I'm intolerant of intolerant people? Yeah. I am. I also hate bigots, racists, etc. Don't make me a bad person...
And so, again, here is my opinion: Farscape sucks and I hope it is gone forever.
Which just shows how selfish you are. Glad to show that off in public are you? Make you feel big?
I really hate people who are so intolerant they can't even stand someone else enjoying a different TV program.