I'd like to add a few more examples of what we think when looking at a feature/web page:
- Here's a required field, if I post the form and omit the name-value pairs, does the application reject the call? - Here's a date field, does it reject dates too far in the past or future (01/01/10000) and reject/convert dates that don't exist (02/29/2000 or 03/54/2012) - Here's an input field that holds text that will be shown on other pages, what happens if I put HTML in there? - Here's an input field, will it correctly handle new name-value pairs (&this=that&)? - Here's a signin form, if I enter a bad username or password, will it provide hints that can be used to mine usernames? - Here's a forgot password form, can it be used to mine valid email addresses?
But people also need to keep in mind that we're *assurance* and not *insurance*. While we can catch a lot of bugs before the end-users see them, it really is up to the developers to produce quality code in the first place. There are few things harder, more expensive, and time consuming than trying to test quality into code.
This is a myth. Android releases have always been backwards compatible. That is, Apps written for Android 1.0 will work just fine in Android 1.1 and any later release in the future. If you're writing an app that requires, say, Android 2.1, such as a Live Wallpaper, then any Android running version 2.1 and higher will work fine.
Um, that's forward compatibility, not backwards. And since so many Android devices never get updates, that means that developers have the choice of writing to the lowest widely used version, or taking advantage of new APIs, or writing two different versions.
Right you are... I'd completely forgotten about their being required to open up about some of their server apps. That said, I don't know if that and this are really and oranges-to-oranges comparison. It's not like the Nook is suffering in the market because it can't connect to SharePoint or some other horrific MS app.
MS and other companies are only obligated to license patents under F/RAND terms if those patents are incorporated into various standards. For nearly every other patent, the cost to license (if the holder decides to do so) it is completely up to the holder, and can indeed by arbitrary and exorbitant. Could be worse... they could simply refuse to license the patents at all.
Who would own a car if you needed a mechanic to spend an hour a day performing maintainence on it for you and a driver to operate it? Not the ordinary person. Only rich folk and corporations would use them - as they once did in the early days.
If the making of chlorine gas is enough to sue the manufacturer, than we're in real trouble. Don't tell anyone, but mixing chlorine bleach and ammonia will do the same thing. I found this out the hard way while working in an old-school photo processing business, and yes we ran out of the building, but no, we didn't call HazMat and close down a whole city block, nor did we sue anyone
(but seriously: how much? I doubt transferring hypervisors, kernels, or boot managers (e.g. grub) from disk is a major factor in boot times).
I'm not sure about how it would affect overall boot time, but as to the how much... milliseconds compared to nanoseconds. It's a considerable speed boost, but again, I don't think it would dramatically improve boot times.
TFA also stated that the software couldn't recognize US currency. Forgive me for not showing too much sympathy for a Casino (Native American or otherwise) that failed to *test* their $MoneyMaker before letting the general public have access. I don't see how this is overly different from supermarket mis-pricing of merchandise. It goes to the consumers favor in California (at least).
You're right, it's not stealing... It's "copyright infringement" if it's only their homemade movies. But then there's the whole invasion of privacy thing. Strangely, I almost hope the RIAA takes in interest in their unlawful copying of mp3's, and the MPAA for the movies. Plus. you'd think that management would take a real interest in this since their chances of coming across images that might not be "legal" increases dramatically when pulling of personal machines instead of directly from the web.
Something that I haven't yet seen mentioned (but I'm lazy and decided not to search to see) is that by omitting Flash from Safari, they've reduced how much data has to be sent when browsing. Flash ads are one thing, but there are plenty of Flash widgets out there that pull in tons of additional content from other sources.
I don't believe your analogy (which we've all beaten to death here) is entirely accurate though. Certainly, I will concede that the email headers are like the postcard; no reasonable expectation to privacy, any more than the addressee is "secret." However, I believe that there is sufficient reason to presume that the body of the message is reasonably "private" since normal internet equipment does not need to examine that information to route it across the web. And for the "difficulty" in sniffing that "secret" body content... I'd guess it's about as hard as it is to open someone's physical mailbox and open what's inside. Not hard, but not legal either. Having the ability to do something doesn't make it right or legal, why should packets in the ether be any different?
ah, plussed email addresses... like user-created aliases only much neater. Used to be quite a few ISP's and other web mail providers supported that, but not so much any more. Yahoo! Mail just recently ended support for that when they redid mail.yahoo.com. If your current ISP doesn't support it, give them a call and ask about it. I agree with the GP on this one... Being able to create an on-the-fly email address is incredibly helpful.
I'm surprised it hasn't come up more, but "pornography" has driven adoption of virtually all modern forms of media. Tin-types, 8mm movie film, VHS, DVD, DSL... you name it, and naked people (or their images) has been behind it. I'm gonna go on a limb and say whatever format is generally adopted by the adult industry is what will win out. Sony and the rest will quickly fall in line.
imgunby
Not to sound too paranoid, but I care a helluva lot more about the accuracy of the software than I do about if it's legal or not (same could be said for any number of vices, but I'll stick to this one). At least in the physical world, there are a lot of physical mechanisms in place to prevent being [too] taken by the house. Can the same truely be said of the online casinos?
Re:This can be used in DoS attacks...
on
Cross Site Cooking
·
· Score: 1
That I don't doubt, but IE is just strange when it comes to cookies in general, and that assumes that everything between client and server correctly handles and passes that much header data, and I can tell you that AOL's proxies are pretty strict when it comes to that sort of stuff.
Re:This can be used in DoS attacks...
on
Cross Site Cooking
·
· Score: 1
Not to be an over-correcting troll, but the cookie limit is 4KB, or up to 20 name-value pairs per domain. Seems like the best you could hope for would be corrupting all cookies under.org, and adding another second or two to the initial request.
-imgunby
So you'd give up a once in a lifetime chance to go? Yes, failure nearly always results in death, but I'm sure that each and every person that has *ever* gone up has been well aware of that, and yet, for 20+ years, people have been placing themselves in that position. I can't believe this was modded as "insightful" Chances are good that you drive a car, which is a helluva lot more dangerous than this is
Nope, broadcasting over the airwaves is covered by an entirely different set of rules. Give your cable company a call and see what the cost would be to order a Pay-Per-View sporting event at your house or at a sports bar if you'd like to know how steep the "fee" is for watching the event.
Whatever your personal views on commercial software happen to be, everything I've ever read from RMS suggests that he really, really believes in "free as in speech." That suggests that it's more than just some passing fad with him... that it might be a "mission"... a "core part of his being" which he is gracious enough to share with the rest of the world.
Like him, or don't; support him or don't, but don't piss in his vision of the future until you've made a fraction of his contributions
Flash itself isn't overly bad, but it is suffering from a few key issues. I'm sure that there'll be others to prove me wrong, but, Flash isn't used anywhere in a "good" way that people can see, it has been bastardized into an ad delivery mechanism to help foil users that were using the right-click properties to determine a new blocking rule, and if left sitting idle on most non-developer machines, will cause the browser to consume staggering amounts of RAM.
So sure, Flash is great at what it does, but what's been done with it so far is near-universally crap, and I'd like none of it, thanks.
iamgunby
Checksums, byte counts and other mechanisms can ensure that they're looking at the suspect file to a great degree of accuracy. Even if the byte count of your PI printout is the same, it won't pass the other checks. Once they locate a cloned file, it's not hard to look for others that are just like it. Help yourself when/if you download. Add ID3 tags, change what's there, trim a second from the end, add some space at the beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to add a few more examples of what we think when looking at a feature/web page:
- Here's a required field, if I post the form and omit the name-value pairs, does the application reject the call?
- Here's a date field, does it reject dates too far in the past or future (01/01/10000) and reject/convert dates that don't exist (02/29/2000 or 03/54/2012)
- Here's an input field that holds text that will be shown on other pages, what happens if I put HTML in there?
- Here's an input field, will it correctly handle new name-value pairs (&this=that&)?
- Here's a signin form, if I enter a bad username or password, will it provide hints that can be used to mine usernames?
- Here's a forgot password form, can it be used to mine valid email addresses?
But people also need to keep in mind that we're *assurance* and not *insurance*. While we can catch a lot of bugs before the end-users see them, it really is up to the developers to produce quality code in the first place. There are few things harder, more expensive, and time consuming than trying to test quality into code.
This is a myth. Android releases have always been backwards compatible. That is, Apps written for Android 1.0 will work just fine in Android 1.1 and any later release in the future. If you're writing an app that requires, say, Android 2.1, such as a Live Wallpaper, then any Android running version 2.1 and higher will work fine.
Um, that's forward compatibility, not backwards. And since so many Android devices never get updates, that means that developers have the choice of writing to the lowest widely used version, or taking advantage of new APIs, or writing two different versions.
Right you are... I'd completely forgotten about their being required to open up about some of their server apps. That said, I don't know if that and this are really and oranges-to-oranges comparison. It's not like the Nook is suffering in the market because it can't connect to SharePoint or some other horrific MS app.
MS and other companies are only obligated to license patents under F/RAND terms if those patents are incorporated into various standards. For nearly every other patent, the cost to license (if the holder decides to do so) it is completely up to the holder, and can indeed by arbitrary and exorbitant. Could be worse... they could simply refuse to license the patents at all.
How on Earth did this comment get modded to +4 Insightful?
I remember seeing this and thinking "YES!!!!!" http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/
Even the names of the old tools, Teardrop and Boink, would be suitable... good times
Who would own a car if you needed a mechanic to spend an hour a day performing maintainence on it for you and a driver to operate it? Not the ordinary person. Only rich folk and corporations would use them - as they once did in the early days.
hahahaha... you've clearly never owned an MG
If the making of chlorine gas is enough to sue the manufacturer, than we're in real trouble. Don't tell anyone, but mixing chlorine bleach and ammonia will do the same thing. I found this out the hard way while working in an old-school photo processing business, and yes we ran out of the building, but no, we didn't call HazMat and close down a whole city block, nor did we sue anyone
I'm not sure about how it would affect overall boot time, but as to the how much... milliseconds compared to nanoseconds. It's a considerable speed boost, but again, I don't think it would dramatically improve boot times.
imgunby
You're right, it's not stealing... It's "copyright infringement" if it's only their homemade movies. But then there's the whole invasion of privacy thing. Strangely, I almost hope the RIAA takes in interest in their unlawful copying of mp3's, and the MPAA for the movies. Plus. you'd think that management would take a real interest in this since their chances of coming across images that might not be "legal" increases dramatically when pulling of personal machines instead of directly from the web.
imgunby
imgunby
ah, plussed email addresses... like user-created aliases only much neater. Used to be quite a few ISP's and other web mail providers supported that, but not so much any more. Yahoo! Mail just recently ended support for that when they redid mail.yahoo.com. If your current ISP doesn't support it, give them a call and ask about it. I agree with the GP on this one... Being able to create an on-the-fly email address is incredibly helpful.
I'm surprised it hasn't come up more, but "pornography" has driven adoption of virtually all modern forms of media. Tin-types, 8mm movie film, VHS, DVD, DSL... you name it, and naked people (or their images) has been behind it. I'm gonna go on a limb and say whatever format is generally adopted by the adult industry is what will win out. Sony and the rest will quickly fall in line. imgunby
Not to sound too paranoid, but I care a helluva lot more about the accuracy of the software than I do about if it's legal or not (same could be said for any number of vices, but I'll stick to this one). At least in the physical world, there are a lot of physical mechanisms in place to prevent being [too] taken by the house. Can the same truely be said of the online casinos?
That I don't doubt, but IE is just strange when it comes to cookies in general, and that assumes that everything between client and server correctly handles and passes that much header data, and I can tell you that AOL's proxies are pretty strict when it comes to that sort of stuff.
Not to be an over-correcting troll, but the cookie limit is 4KB, or up to 20 name-value pairs per domain. Seems like the best you could hope for would be corrupting all cookies under .org, and adding another second or two to the initial request.
-imgunby
So you'd give up a once in a lifetime chance to go? Yes, failure nearly always results in death, but I'm sure that each and every person that has *ever* gone up has been well aware of that, and yet, for 20+ years, people have been placing themselves in that position. I can't believe this was modded as "insightful" Chances are good that you drive a car, which is a helluva lot more dangerous than this is
Nope, broadcasting over the airwaves is covered by an entirely different set of rules. Give your cable company a call and see what the cost would be to order a Pay-Per-View sporting event at your house or at a sports bar if you'd like to know how steep the "fee" is for watching the event.
Like him, or don't; support him or don't, but don't piss in his vision of the future until you've made a fraction of his contributions
So sure, Flash is great at what it does, but what's been done with it so far is near-universally crap, and I'd like none of it, thanks. iamgunby
It was clearly a joke, and yet for all the bitching and whining, "we" still managed to take them down. Who is the Fool now? :-)
Checksums, byte counts and other mechanisms can ensure that they're looking at the suspect file to a great degree of accuracy. Even if the byte count of your PI printout is the same, it won't pass the other checks. Once they locate a cloned file, it's not hard to look for others that are just like it. Help yourself when/if you download. Add ID3 tags, change what's there, trim a second from the end, add some space at the beginning.