What, Mr. Hart, are the weaknesses in OpenSSH public key authentication?
All encryption (that I know of) use mathematical problems that just take a long time to solve. If you can solve the problems faster then the algorithm is worthless and this is how crypto algorithms are broken.
In essence, all crypto algorithms are security through obscurity.
To foul up public/private key crypto you have to deal with large number factorization (or elipitcal curves or...). That's it. Do it fast enough and it's defeated. The obscurity is the hedging of bets on large number factorization won't happen for a long time, if ever.
The long promised quantum computing can supposedly squash all known crypto algorithms due to its speed and ability to solve these problems. Thus, problems will have to be created that take quantum computers a long time to solve.
The only "advances" in crypto is finding harder and harder problems to solve. That's it. That's cryptography.
The *only* algo that I know of that doesn't rely on mathematical properties like factorization is the one-time pad.
So it's not a weakness in public/private key, per se, but in crypto in general.
(IANA cryptographer, but that's my understanding of it all and I more than welcome any corrections.)
Microsoft is in the same position that IBM was in during most of the 1980s...
Wait, wasn't it MS that created MS-DOS that outshined IBM's PC-DOS which then became Windows? So it was MS that put the squash on IBM (at least in the OS category). Now that you claim MS is in IBM's spot, is this where we draw that MS will be squashed by another competitor in the OS market? Perhaps OS X or Linux?
Then again I was in grade school when all of the above was being hashed out...
I haven't been able to find any constitutional right to bear digital recording devices, but I'm still looking... I'll get back to you if I find anything.
The constitution is not an inclusive list of our rights. It's an allow,deny policy in that unless it denies you something then you have the right to it. Digital recording devices and privacy are NOT in the constitution or amendments therefore no one has the right to restrict your usage of it.
Your thinking is precisely why the likes of Alexander Hamilton rejected the bill of rights (Federalist #84):
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."
Since you're obviously not alone and there have been countless instances of the constitution being understood to be inclusive (see the whole civil rights movement and women's suffrage for two examples) then it is clear to me that Hamilton was entirely correct, and that saddens me so.
Congratulations, it's people like you and people that think like you, that are continually eroding our freedoms & rights. Not just unstated freedoms & rights, but even the named ones. Pretty much pick an amendment that deals with rights and you can easily find governmental erosion of it.
However, it seems that wider adoption of FOSS can be achieved if greater development effort is focused on the first freedom - the freedom to run.
Ultimately, I don't find FOSS exists for the sake of adoption. I don't think I need to explain this at all considering the venue, but the purpose of FOSS is freedom. Freedom from a single entity to control your "computational destiny." With FOSS, you don't have to be chained to Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. The only chain you are bound to is your own motivation for freedom. If you have no desire to free yourself from your own chain then you don't deserve the freedom.
If there's ever an example of exactly what I mean then just look at the state of freedoms in the US. Everywhere you look the government is eroding freedoms (mostly in the name of anti-terrorism)...and very few people are fighting it. Ney, some are even fighting for the erosion.
So if in 10 years the Americans have no freedoms: speak against the president -> go to jail; purchase a gun -> summarily executed; try to overthrow a tyrannical government (this is not a freedom but a right) -> public execution alla William Wallace style; run an underground newspaper -> go to jail; etc. etc. If that happens and the public does nothing to stop it, then can you say they deserve those freedoms.
Freedom isn't a free, you have to earn it. With FOSS, today, it requires knowledge. Most importantly that knowledge is free to acquire. The only thing stopping people for acquiring it is themselves.
The only reason freedoms & rights exist is thanks to our forefathers. Ignoring their work and sacrifice by taking it all for granted and not fighting anyone that wishes to get rid of them dissolves your entitlement to said freedoms and rights.
So, while I completely disagree that "freedom to run means freedom from complexity" (as if the political sphere is any easier) I will agree that "ease of use" will increase adoption. I would have much more enjoyed the blogging if the author hadn't used a tenant to FOSS as a rationale for marketing.
Speaking of which, I don't recall reading the FOSS constitution that listed the given four freedoms (run, study, modify, redistribute). If you really have "the freedom" then you can define your own set of freedoms that define FOSS. In this author's case, "freedom from complexity" is #5 but I have the freedom to not add that one to my list!
Uploads would use a unique port from other types of BitTorrent traffic so that network administrators can see it as separate and handle it accordingly.
If ISPs recognize Apple's "iTunes BT port" as empirically a no-pirating-zone and remove any packet filtering, then I predict it'll be a prime target for "illegal networks" to use thus effectively making this whole "unique port" deal a flop from the first turn at the track. Because, after all, you can't just run any protocol you want on any port number, especially when the server and client have a mutual understanding (which is all your standard ports are)...
Taking "handle it accordingly" another way, I can forsee that to mean "we [the ISP] want a dime on every 100 MB you send because of increased network load." Nevermind this bit:...the system would also save terabytes of Internet backbone bandwidth that is now used for Software Updates, QuickTime Movie Trailers, and iTunes Store downloads among other things.
So if it does nothing for packet filtering and is just begging for ISPs to charge users then exactly what good is using a "unique port" gonna do? My prediction: not a damn thing!
The question was how much $150 is to the chinese. After finding some data, I answered between 3 to 6 months work. I wasn't making it sound any particular way.
I wrote: So, from 3 to 6 months net income for an average household.
[sarcasm]Boy, there's so much spin on that that I think Bill O'Reilly would be speechless.[/sarcasm]
Just randomly picking from a google search finds this PDF which says the average household income for a rural household is 2262 Yuan which is about $327 USD. So a $150 computer would be about 6 months work for a rural family.
The graph on this page confirms the ~2200 Yuan for rural households and shows urban households at just more than double that of rural.
So, from 3 to 6 months net income for an average household.
Except it was stated that it could be "...handled by your web browser." Using a proxy is short of "cheating" in this regard. My point still stands: the effort required for everyone to setup their own proxy is much greater than for/. to do it once.
That's a facility that is already (rightly) handled by your web browser. The website in-question need-not add such features.
How can I make firefox use a custom style sheet on a per-site basis? How about IE? How about Opera? How can I then tie all three browsers to a single set of style sheets so I don't have to deal with it? Then how can I make it mobile so that if I log in at a cyber cafe or a public computing lab then my custom style sheets are there waiting for me?
Hmm, it would seem that from a global perspective that it would take less effort to enable/. to do it for me when you consider such effort would have to be replicated by 10s of thousands of people to provide the same impact. Nevermind that I see no solution to provide equivalent service as having it stored on/.'s server.
If I ignore for a second that you're just picking an argument for its sake, then I'll point out that if they heed my suggestion then THE FACILITY TO DO THIS IS ALREADY DONE! It's just a matter of leaving it there after the competition.
So what was your point again cuz I think I pretty much rendered it moot...
If it exists in the DOM tree, then you can display:none it. Through the use of children selectors it's quite easy. Though I see/. puts all of its adds in iframes as well. Why would "iframe {display:none;}" not work?
Instead of requiring someone to set something up elsewhere, it'd be nice if you could post your CSS to your user account and have it applied (much like on wikipedia). Slap in an option on the URL to viewing the page with someone else's style sheet. Bam. All your entries are in one place; no one has to worry about setting up hosting elsewhere; anyone can view anyone's entry (or throw a admin-only thing on it or something if you care); etc.
Only problem I see is that you can't do anything outside of what you can do with a style sheet. If someone's that serious then they shouldn't have a problem/lack-of-motivation of setting up hosting elsewhere.
Better still: make this permanent. If I don't like X or Y then I can tweak my own style sheet the way I want. But I suppose that'd lead to user's finding a way to display: none the adverts.
I guess the humor in my previous post didn't implicitly make the question rhetorical in nature. Don't get me wrong, I wholly understand the proverbial usage of "brain surgeon" and "rocket scientist" as means of attributing and/or gauging intelligence which is why I played on it and made it a joke. So here's a reply anyway.
I know plenty of people with MDs that couldn't make Firefox their default browser to save their life, let alone generate a public/private key pair or even understand good crypto from bad crypto.
Brain surgeons are no more apt to be crypotographers than rocket scientists by the shear fact that they are smart.
Not even computer engineers or computer scientists are more apt to be crypotgraphers. It's when people think they know cryptography but don't that cryptography blows up in their face spectacularly (CSS, WEP, HDCP, countless anti-piracy-on-CD techniques, etc.).
Cryptography is one of those fields (like nuclear engineering and brain surgery) that if you do not know exactly what you're doing then you're bound to fail and cause some bad stuff to happen (meaning that there is no way to repair the damage). Imagine if all of the classified documents were protected with nothing more than CSS or WEP.
You didn't expect these people to be brain surgeons did you?
If they were then they would have used "braintography" where they hide messages inside the brain either by direct surgical insertion or careful manipulation of neurons (aka brainstegonography).
Sorry, what does cryptography have to do with brain surgeons again?
I am speaking as a career software developer and lifelong Apple devotee. But i'm not touching boot camp again while in Beta and will still be wary beyond that. Apple should have held onto their cards a little longer.
Hell's weather man:
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, just like in The Day After Tomorrow, this storm just snuck up on us and we totally did not see it coming. This major bigger-than-hurricane-sized storm has literally frozen Hell...
This just in: yes...yes, I see, yes...it has been confirmed that a Mac fanboy is...stuck in Windows world on his Apple laptop. We advise everyone to seek shelter immediately as we predict a rapid population influx from these disgruntled Mac fanboys.
There you have it, fellow Techsters: proof of the fantastic levels of absurdity to which the RIAA attack has sunk.
In other news, the local school bully is reported to have deprived students of their milk money and the students were shocked to realize, while standing in the lunch line, that they had no money for their milk. The students were heard to have said, "I can't believe how low this bully has sunk to. He even told me that I'd have to go without milk but I just didn't believe him."
Though, some day the bully gets what's coming to him...and he will claim he's the victim.
A possible way of securing one's application is using some form of 'sequence-numbering'-like scheme.
How is this not security through obscurity? The only difference between guessing this sequence number and guessing the session ID in a cookie is only that of duration, but one sniff on the wire and you got it.
Overall, the hype on AJAX security stems from people not treating the AJAX requests any differently from non-AJAX requests. Trusting your input is mistake #1 regardless of where or how it comes.
And we'll rehash this entire deal in a few years when AJAX is replaced with something else of equal buzzwordthyness.
Consumer electronics is another key to why consumers want movies on DVD sooner. If you sank a couple thousand into a home theater then why go to the theater when you can very likely have some/any/all of the following: people chatting; people on cell phones; cell phones ringing; pop spilt on the floor making it sticky; $20 tubs of popcorn; crappy chairs; etc.
Plus you can't drink beer and eat pizza in a theater (at least none of the ones I know about).
Now there's an idea! Hot, fresh (good) pizza ready at the start of the movie and copious amounts of beer. Give the theater an atmosphere instead of jamming people into rows like sardines. Plenty of hurdles to overcome by doing this though. But a little thinking and ingenuity is a good way to make a viable business out of it.
Movie theaters are complaining because the sooner DVDs come out the less time movies are shown in the theater. Less time means consumers will likely opt to not go to the theater and wait & buy the DVD. What the entertainment industry wants is to dip into the consumers' pockets as many times possible. By moving the DVD releases up then it's the theaters that are not getting their dip.
I'm not surprised they are complaining. Now all three are contending for that first dip.
Personally, I've stopped going to the theater. If I go with my wife and get anything to eat or drink then I've surpassed the price of the DVD (at least in IA the theater prices are "reasonable"). For the quality of movies today...I can wait a few months for the DVD. An extra $20 isn't worth it.
It's no surprise to me that theater profits are down and they're contemplating moving DVD release dates up. Why? THE CONSUMERS WANT IT! Which, to me, means there isn't a total monopoly on the whole deal because we have a smidget of a say by voting with our wallets.
So why don't they program firefox to render pages the same way IE does it?
I'm just flabbergasted at the thought that I'm not even sure where to begin on a reply. What you are asking...is basically asking them to...break...firefox. I'm all for demolition and breaking stuff just as much as the next guy but that's usually in the name of progress and I see little "progress" in such a proposal.
As lame and well-used as it is: what you're proposing is for the firefox developers to jump off a bridge just becuase 90% of the people are doing it...
By no means am I saying firefox is perfect, but....damn dude.
According to eldavojohn (I don't care enough to verify it) he owns apple stock. So I guess that upgrades him from just fanboy to I-like-my-money-so-I-won't-bash-my-investments fanboy?
Since I started using PHP's DOM functions, I haven't written a lick of hard coded HTML except for templates that I import into DOM. I create template tags within the template as hook points so on loading the template into DOM I can cache a list of all these template hooks (and remove them so the template is back to valid HTML) and then I can inject my dynamic content directly into where the hooks are.
Some quick advantages:
You don't have to worry about closing your tags, just assigning parents
You can modify your tree at any point in execution (such as style changes, removing sections of the page based on user input, etc.)
Outputting HTML or XHTML doesn't change your DOM tree
You can more easily write code with more separation between functionality (model) and interface (view)
If an error occurs then you don't have to worry about the "headers already sent" issue
You can easily create DOM manipulation libraries to do a lot of the tedious tasks for you (element creation, attribute population, etc.)
So even if you don't want to get into XML, XSLT, etc. then using the DOM for page generation is a much better solution than the traditional mixing HTML into PHP into files. The only qualifier to that I can think of is very small sites and when you don't have said libraries and such built up.
When else would hard coding HTML be preferred? I'm drawing a complete blank.
I haven't read any Asimov (he's on my list though) but my first thought to this was: Asimov is fiction and these aren't autonomous robots. These robots are radio controlled by humans, so all this does is put the soldier out of the line of fire and put a machine in his place.
So, why is Asimov being invoked on a non-autonomous robot and the military being frowned upon for breaking Asimov's first law...when the machines wouldn't have the foggiest of clues to what Asimov's laws mean?
Really, these robots are people killing people with a camera & some servos as a proxy. There is nothing sentient about this robot (from what I read).
Slashdot Mirror
What, Mr. Hart, are the weaknesses in OpenSSH public key authentication?
...). That's it. Do it fast enough and it's defeated. The obscurity is the hedging of bets on large number factorization won't happen for a long time, if ever.
All encryption (that I know of) use mathematical problems that just take a long time to solve. If you can solve the problems faster then the algorithm is worthless and this is how crypto algorithms are broken.
In essence, all crypto algorithms are security through obscurity.
To foul up public/private key crypto you have to deal with large number factorization (or elipitcal curves or
The long promised quantum computing can supposedly squash all known crypto algorithms due to its speed and ability to solve these problems. Thus, problems will have to be created that take quantum computers a long time to solve.
The only "advances" in crypto is finding harder and harder problems to solve. That's it. That's cryptography.
The *only* algo that I know of that doesn't rely on mathematical properties like factorization is the one-time pad.
So it's not a weakness in public/private key, per se, but in crypto in general.
(IANA cryptographer, but that's my understanding of it all and I more than welcome any corrections.)
Microsoft is in the same position that IBM was in during most of the 1980s...
Wait, wasn't it MS that created MS-DOS that outshined IBM's PC-DOS which then became Windows? So it was MS that put the squash on IBM (at least in the OS category). Now that you claim MS is in IBM's spot, is this where we draw that MS will be squashed by another competitor in the OS market? Perhaps OS X or Linux?
Then again I was in grade school when all of the above was being hashed out...
I haven't been able to find any constitutional right to bear digital recording devices, but I'm still looking... I'll get back to you if I find anything.
The constitution is not an inclusive list of our rights. It's an allow,deny policy in that unless it denies you something then you have the right to it. Digital recording devices and privacy are NOT in the constitution or amendments therefore no one has the right to restrict your usage of it.
Your thinking is precisely why the likes of Alexander Hamilton rejected the bill of rights (Federalist #84):
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."
Since you're obviously not alone and there have been countless instances of the constitution being understood to be inclusive (see the whole civil rights movement and women's suffrage for two examples) then it is clear to me that Hamilton was entirely correct, and that saddens me so.
Congratulations, it's people like you and people that think like you, that are continually eroding our freedoms & rights. Not just unstated freedoms & rights, but even the named ones. Pretty much pick an amendment that deals with rights and you can easily find governmental erosion of it.
However, it seems that wider adoption of FOSS can be achieved if greater development effort is focused on the first freedom - the freedom to run.
Ultimately, I don't find FOSS exists for the sake of adoption. I don't think I need to explain this at all considering the venue, but the purpose of FOSS is freedom. Freedom from a single entity to control your "computational destiny." With FOSS, you don't have to be chained to Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. The only chain you are bound to is your own motivation for freedom. If you have no desire to free yourself from your own chain then you don't deserve the freedom.
If there's ever an example of exactly what I mean then just look at the state of freedoms in the US. Everywhere you look the government is eroding freedoms (mostly in the name of anti-terrorism)...and very few people are fighting it. Ney, some are even fighting for the erosion.
So if in 10 years the Americans have no freedoms: speak against the president -> go to jail; purchase a gun -> summarily executed; try to overthrow a tyrannical government (this is not a freedom but a right) -> public execution alla William Wallace style; run an underground newspaper -> go to jail; etc. etc. If that happens and the public does nothing to stop it, then can you say they deserve those freedoms.
Freedom isn't a free, you have to earn it. With FOSS, today, it requires knowledge. Most importantly that knowledge is free to acquire. The only thing stopping people for acquiring it is themselves.
The only reason freedoms & rights exist is thanks to our forefathers. Ignoring their work and sacrifice by taking it all for granted and not fighting anyone that wishes to get rid of them dissolves your entitlement to said freedoms and rights.
So, while I completely disagree that "freedom to run means freedom from complexity" (as if the political sphere is any easier) I will agree that "ease of use" will increase adoption. I would have much more enjoyed the blogging if the author hadn't used a tenant to FOSS as a rationale for marketing.
Speaking of which, I don't recall reading the FOSS constitution that listed the given four freedoms (run, study, modify, redistribute). If you really have "the freedom" then you can define your own set of freedoms that define FOSS. In this author's case, "freedom from complexity" is #5 but I have the freedom to not add that one to my list!
FTA:
...the system would also save terabytes of Internet backbone bandwidth that is now used for Software Updates, QuickTime Movie Trailers, and iTunes Store downloads among other things.
Uploads would use a unique port from other types of BitTorrent traffic so that network administrators can see it as separate and handle it accordingly.
If ISPs recognize Apple's "iTunes BT port" as empirically a no-pirating-zone and remove any packet filtering, then I predict it'll be a prime target for "illegal networks" to use thus effectively making this whole "unique port" deal a flop from the first turn at the track. Because, after all, you can't just run any protocol you want on any port number, especially when the server and client have a mutual understanding (which is all your standard ports are)...
Taking "handle it accordingly" another way, I can forsee that to mean "we [the ISP] want a dime on every 100 MB you send because of increased network load." Nevermind this bit:
So if it does nothing for packet filtering and is just begging for ISPs to charge users then exactly what good is using a "unique port" gonna do? My prediction: not a damn thing!
Case in point on why providing sources is Good Thing. :) Glad to know they'll be much more affordable than I initially thought.
It's not as off-the-wall as you make it sound.
The question was how much $150 is to the chinese. After finding some data, I answered between 3 to 6 months work. I wasn't making it sound any particular way.
I wrote: So, from 3 to 6 months net income for an average household.
[sarcasm]Boy, there's so much spin on that that I think Bill O'Reilly would be speechless.[/sarcasm]
Just randomly picking from a google search finds this PDF which says the average household income for a rural household is 2262 Yuan which is about $327 USD. So a $150 computer would be about 6 months work for a rural family.
The graph on this page confirms the ~2200 Yuan for rural households and shows urban households at just more than double that of rural.
So, from 3 to 6 months net income for an average household.
I do it with an http proxy...
/. to do it once.
Except it was stated that it could be "...handled by your web browser." Using a proxy is short of "cheating" in this regard. My point still stands: the effort required for everyone to setup their own proxy is much greater than for
That's a facility that is already (rightly) handled by your web browser. The website in-question need-not add such features.
/. to do it for me when you consider such effort would have to be replicated by 10s of thousands of people to provide the same impact. Nevermind that I see no solution to provide equivalent service as having it stored on /.'s server.
How can I make firefox use a custom style sheet on a per-site basis? How about IE? How about Opera? How can I then tie all three browsers to a single set of style sheets so I don't have to deal with it? Then how can I make it mobile so that if I log in at a cyber cafe or a public computing lab then my custom style sheets are there waiting for me?
Hmm, it would seem that from a global perspective that it would take less effort to enable
If I ignore for a second that you're just picking an argument for its sake, then I'll point out that if they heed my suggestion then THE FACILITY TO DO THIS IS ALREADY DONE! It's just a matter of leaving it there after the competition.
So what was your point again cuz I think I pretty much rendered it moot...
If it exists in the DOM tree, then you can display:none it. Through the use of children selectors it's quite easy. Though I see /. puts all of its adds in iframes as well. Why would "iframe {display:none;}" not work?
Instead of requiring someone to set something up elsewhere, it'd be nice if you could post your CSS to your user account and have it applied (much like on wikipedia). Slap in an option on the URL to viewing the page with someone else's style sheet. Bam. All your entries are in one place; no one has to worry about setting up hosting elsewhere; anyone can view anyone's entry (or throw a admin-only thing on it or something if you care); etc.
Only problem I see is that you can't do anything outside of what you can do with a style sheet. If someone's that serious then they shouldn't have a problem/lack-of-motivation of setting up hosting elsewhere.
Better still: make this permanent. If I don't like X or Y then I can tweak my own style sheet the way I want. But I suppose that'd lead to user's finding a way to display: none the adverts.
Oh well, one can dream I guess...
I guess the humor in my previous post didn't implicitly make the question rhetorical in nature. Don't get me wrong, I wholly understand the proverbial usage of "brain surgeon" and "rocket scientist" as means of attributing and/or gauging intelligence which is why I played on it and made it a joke. So here's a reply anyway.
I know plenty of people with MDs that couldn't make Firefox their default browser to save their life, let alone generate a public/private key pair or even understand good crypto from bad crypto.
Brain surgeons are no more apt to be crypotographers than rocket scientists by the shear fact that they are smart.
Not even computer engineers or computer scientists are more apt to be crypotgraphers. It's when people think they know cryptography but don't that cryptography blows up in their face spectacularly (CSS, WEP, HDCP, countless anti-piracy-on-CD techniques, etc.).
Cryptography is one of those fields (like nuclear engineering and brain surgery) that if you do not know exactly what you're doing then you're bound to fail and cause some bad stuff to happen (meaning that there is no way to repair the damage). Imagine if all of the classified documents were protected with nothing more than CSS or WEP.
You didn't expect these people to be brain surgeons did you?
If they were then they would have used "braintography" where they hide messages inside the brain either by direct surgical insertion or careful manipulation of neurons (aka brainstegonography).
Sorry, what does cryptography have to do with brain surgeons again?
Hell's weather man:
Karl Cocknozzle writes: ...common lack of knowledge of what a 'beta' release really is: Not ready for prime-time.
I take it Karl doesn't work for google?
There you have it, fellow Techsters: proof of the fantastic levels of absurdity to which the RIAA attack has sunk.
In other news, the local school bully is reported to have deprived students of their milk money and the students were shocked to realize, while standing in the lunch line, that they had no money for their milk. The students were heard to have said, "I can't believe how low this bully has sunk to. He even told me that I'd have to go without milk but I just didn't believe him."
Though, some day the bully gets what's coming to him...and he will claim he's the victim.
A possible way of securing one's application is using some form of 'sequence-numbering'-like scheme.
How is this not security through obscurity? The only difference between guessing this sequence number and guessing the session ID in a cookie is only that of duration, but one sniff on the wire and you got it.
Overall, the hype on AJAX security stems from people not treating the AJAX requests any differently from non-AJAX requests. Trusting your input is mistake #1 regardless of where or how it comes.
And we'll rehash this entire deal in a few years when AJAX is replaced with something else of equal buzzwordthyness.
Consumer electronics is another key to why consumers want movies on DVD sooner. If you sank a couple thousand into a home theater then why go to the theater when you can very likely have some/any/all of the following: people chatting; people on cell phones; cell phones ringing; pop spilt on the floor making it sticky; $20 tubs of popcorn; crappy chairs; etc.
Plus you can't drink beer and eat pizza in a theater (at least none of the ones I know about).
Now there's an idea! Hot, fresh (good) pizza ready at the start of the movie and copious amounts of beer. Give the theater an atmosphere instead of jamming people into rows like sardines. Plenty of hurdles to overcome by doing this though. But a little thinking and ingenuity is a good way to make a viable business out of it.
Currently:
Proposed (and future potential slippery slope outcome):
I'm not surprised they are complaining. Now all three are contending for that first dip.
Personally, I've stopped going to the theater. If I go with my wife and get anything to eat or drink then I've surpassed the price of the DVD (at least in IA the theater prices are "reasonable"). For the quality of movies today...I can wait a few months for the DVD. An extra $20 isn't worth it.
It's no surprise to me that theater profits are down and they're contemplating moving DVD release dates up. Why? THE CONSUMERS WANT IT! Which, to me, means there isn't a total monopoly on the whole deal because we have a smidget of a say by voting with our wallets.
So why don't they program firefox to render pages the same way IE does it?
I'm just flabbergasted at the thought that I'm not even sure where to begin on a reply. What you are asking...is basically asking them to...break...firefox. I'm all for demolition and breaking stuff just as much as the next guy but that's usually in the name of progress and I see little "progress" in such a proposal.
As lame and well-used as it is: what you're proposing is for the firefox developers to jump off a bridge just becuase 90% of the people are doing it...
By no means am I saying firefox is perfect, but....damn dude.
...he's just another Apple fanboy.
According to eldavojohn (I don't care enough to verify it) he owns apple stock. So I guess that upgrades him from just fanboy to I-like-my-money-so-I-won't-bash-my-investments fanboy?
Some quick advantages:
So even if you don't want to get into XML, XSLT, etc. then using the DOM for page generation is a much better solution than the traditional mixing HTML into PHP into files. The only qualifier to that I can think of is very small sites and when you don't have said libraries and such built up.
When else would hard coding HTML be preferred? I'm drawing a complete blank.
I haven't read any Asimov (he's on my list though) but my first thought to this was: Asimov is fiction and these aren't autonomous robots. These robots are radio controlled by humans, so all this does is put the soldier out of the line of fire and put a machine in his place.
So, why is Asimov being invoked on a non-autonomous robot and the military being frowned upon for breaking Asimov's first law...when the machines wouldn't have the foggiest of clues to what Asimov's laws mean?
Really, these robots are people killing people with a camera & some servos as a proxy. There is nothing sentient about this robot (from what I read).
Crap. Teach me for not scouring my preview before submitting. Here's the PDF I intended to link to:
u rple.pdf
http://www.llnl.gov/asc/platforms/purple/sc2005-p