I am a little appalled by the reaction of many/.ers. This was a guy with a family. You have no idea whether he was responsible and careful with animals, not being animal trainers yourselves. All you have is your uninformed opinion about it. Have a little respect for the guy, if only because he was more than just a TV star.
The real problem with IE7 fixing their past CSS problems is that many people have used the [if IE] hack and probably will neglect to change it to [if lt IE 7]. Their past hacks will be working against them in that case. In the production site I manage, making this change and testing in the IE7 beta yielded a correct user experience. Try it.
If the programmer is writing and testing his code with error_reporting(E_ALL), then he would quickly realize that he is testing an uninitialized value.
I thought that if you purchased a whole album it was like $10 on iTunes regardless of how many songs are on it? I've noticed that many albums don't have each individual song offered for download, in order to get them all you have to buy the whole thing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
All I am concerned with is how poorly it was designed, not whether Microsoft sufficiently covered their ass on the technicalities. Any large organization puts thousands of words of disclaimers in their product manuals just so they won't be held responsible. The lawsuit makes no difference to me except for the fact that it gives the product a well-deserved black eye. Companies who cut corners, in order to ship earlier than their competitors, deserve negative press in order to discourage others from following suit.
Liability aside, in order to make a well-designed product, one must take the user experience into account. Not to mention, I doubt the 360 has a big yellow label that says "WARNING! This product may crash if you use it on carpet or in your entertainment center." Companies who work under the "how can we release this product earlier/cheaper by cutting corners and putting it in the manual" paradigm are bad for the industry and deserve to receive some flak.
P.S. What the hell is "commense sense"? If you're going to flame someone's post, at least check your wording.
It is a design flaw to sell a game system that can't be in an enclosed space (entertainment center), or on carpet (almost all living rooms). No matter whether you state it in the manual, it is completely ridiculous not to constrain your design to the most likely usages.
Last year bloggers posted videos showing how to break open a Kryptonite lock using a ballpoint pen. That much was true. But they also spread bogus information--that all Kryptonite models could be cracked with a pen; that it is the only brand with this vulnerability; and that Kryptonite knew about the problem and covered it up. None of these claims is true, but a year later Kryptonite still struggles to set the record straight, while spending millions to replace locks.http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2005/1114/12 8_2.html
He was quite obvious in mentioning that some of the information was true. You must have missed the part where he started talking about the really damaging part where false information was spread. How ironic that you are just adding to the problem he was talking about.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. A brief read through the most highly-moderated comments has left me a little surprised. For those of us who did in fact RTFA (all four pages of it), it doesn't seem to me that the author is bashing the existence of blogs. The main point he makes, which I found valid, is that blogs can often times contain and propagate erroneous information (sometimes purposefully). Many of you have said things to the effect of "then the target should just respond with the truth". I definitely agree with you there, but what about the targets whose credability is totally ruined over false information, or the attack is so overwhelming as to drown them out? Their rebuttal is ignored and marginalized (especially in cases where the slander is the objective). What recourse do these targets have in the case of a relentless zealot who just so happens to be operating on incorrect information or motives? Cue flames...
It is possible that they often have good intentions (i.e. accepted standard of what a person likely knows without having to create ones own competency tests).
Slashdot Mirror
I rather like the integration in my Scion tC. The iPod is hidden in the center console, while I control it from the head unit.
Mod parent up. Loss of a human life is not funny unless it's fake.
I am a little appalled by the reaction of many /.ers. This was a guy with a family. You have no idea whether he was responsible and careful with animals, not being animal trainers yourselves. All you have is your uninformed opinion about it. Have a little respect for the guy, if only because he was more than just a TV star.
The real problem with IE7 fixing their past CSS problems is that many people have used the [if IE] hack and probably will neglect to change it to [if lt IE 7]. Their past hacks will be working against them in that case. In the production site I manage, making this change and testing in the IE7 beta yielded a correct user experience. Try it.
If they're really as green as you're describing, are they going to know anything about Perl taint mode either?
If the programmer is writing and testing his code with error_reporting(E_ALL), then he would quickly realize that he is testing an uninitialized value.
Of course it's legal. They can record the conversation from their end as well.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the potential for protecting "certain content" from prying eyes... I'm disappointed in you slashdot. For shame.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
Get over it.
They're welcome to follow eMusic.com's model in order to gain iPod interoperability.
I'm sure you mean Web 2.0®...
I think what GP was referring to is a url to a fileshare (e.g. \\Server\path\to\dir\).
The point remains that the code would never have been closed if not for the BSD license.
Assuming AMD keeps the edge in multimedia?
I thought that if you purchased a whole album it was like $10 on iTunes regardless of how many songs are on it? I've noticed that many albums don't have each individual song offered for download, in order to get them all you have to buy the whole thing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
All I am concerned with is how poorly it was designed, not whether Microsoft sufficiently covered their ass on the technicalities. Any large organization puts thousands of words of disclaimers in their product manuals just so they won't be held responsible. The lawsuit makes no difference to me except for the fact that it gives the product a well-deserved black eye. Companies who cut corners, in order to ship earlier than their competitors, deserve negative press in order to discourage others from following suit.
I wasn't planning on it. If you don't want to hear about people criticizing poorly-designed products then you have come to the wrong place.
Liability aside, in order to make a well-designed product, one must take the user experience into account. Not to mention, I doubt the 360 has a big yellow label that says "WARNING! This product may crash if you use it on carpet or in your entertainment center." Companies who work under the "how can we release this product earlier/cheaper by cutting corners and putting it in the manual" paradigm are bad for the industry and deserve to receive some flak. P.S. What the hell is "commense sense"? If you're going to flame someone's post, at least check your wording.
It is a design flaw to sell a game system that can't be in an enclosed space (entertainment center), or on carpet (almost all living rooms). No matter whether you state it in the manual, it is completely ridiculous not to constrain your design to the most likely usages.
Until they are denounced for thought crime? Any predictions?
I'm going to go out on a limb here. A brief read through the most highly-moderated comments has left me a little surprised. For those of us who did in fact RTFA (all four pages of it), it doesn't seem to me that the author is bashing the existence of blogs. The main point he makes, which I found valid, is that blogs can often times contain and propagate erroneous information (sometimes purposefully). Many of you have said things to the effect of "then the target should just respond with the truth". I definitely agree with you there, but what about the targets whose credability is totally ruined over false information, or the attack is so overwhelming as to drown them out? Their rebuttal is ignored and marginalized (especially in cases where the slander is the objective). What recourse do these targets have in the case of a relentless zealot who just so happens to be operating on incorrect information or motives? Cue flames...
It is possible that they often have good intentions (i.e. accepted standard of what a person likely knows without having to create ones own competency tests).