It's not just x.com and x.org. Q.com is registered to Qwest Communications, and z.com is registered to Nissan North America. I'm pretty sure both used to belong to other organizations. Wasn't z.com a magazine of some sort?
It's official now, but a few years ago a company had it and was taking advantage of consumer confusion to pass through domain registrations to the real Internic (whose site was at www.internic.net) at a large markup. Presumably, some of these exclusions are designed to prevent that sort of fraud.
OT Note: the correct term is tome... not tomb (which is where somebody is buried).
I figured the use of "tomb" was intentional. After all, it's where you put dead trees.
Re:But Microsoft will decide to invent their own..
on
New Mail RFCs Released
·
· Score: 1
Dont Use MS products if you dont like them.
Who said I was using MS products? I was complaining about the garbage that other people who are using MS products send me. Are you saying I should just refuse to receive e-mail from any of them? It's a thought, I suppose, but it seems a bit harsh to refuse to communicate with my less technically inclined friends and relatives simply because they're unaware that Bill & Co. are causing them to produce nonstandard messages.
Re:But Microsoft will decide to invent their own..
on
New Mail RFCs Released
·
· Score: 1
You know, email has existed for a pretty long time now and people using Outlook can still communicate with the rest of the world just fine.
Assuming that communicating "just fine" means sending HTML-formatted messages using Microsoft-specific character codings (non-Unicode curly quotes, etc.) and expecting the recipient to deal with it. Hotmail even changed their default settings recently so that there isn't even a plain-text alternative included in the message anymore.
1. Nobody claims filters are perfect. They don't have to be. An argument that they aren't perfect is no argument.
It's not that the filters aren't perfect -- it's that they don't do what they claim. They leave many pornographic sites unblocked, and they block many sites that they have no legitimate reason to block (some apparently for political reasons). The filtering requirement is simply a huge handout of public money to the software companies selling the snake oil^W^W filters. Why should we support the fraud?
Wow, look at that: the guy says "annoying ads are effective" and you can immediately off the top of your head name eight brands whose advertising you have noticed as being annoying. I bet they're real cut up that you're paying that much attention to them.
But how does it benefit the advertisers for him to remember never to buy their products? I thought the purpose of the advertising was to increase sales, not simply to make a brand name well known. Otherwise the companies might as well commit terrorist acts as a way of gaining publicity.
3. This "Church" (which I am not a fan of, although I am a practicing member of a religous movement) had it's copyright violated 4. They got upset. 5. They wanted it removed.
The problem is that Slashdot (along with other carriers) is effectively forced to remove content simply because someone claims it violates copyright. It doesn't matter whether there's an actual violation. Thus organizations like the Scientologists are given a powerful weapon to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
It's worse than that. Remember, different areas have different sales taxes. LA County has a higher sales tax than Ventura County. I seem to recall that there are somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 different sales tax authorities in the US.
It's even worse than that, from a logistical standpoint. It's not just a matter of having a single number for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction charges taxes on different items at different rates. For example, in many places groceries aren't taxed at all but snacks are, and the definition of "snack" varies from place to place. Any software for handling taxes would have to know about all the local laws regarding classification of items and tax rates for each, and it would have to be updated every time any state legislature or city council decides to change the tax law.
Freedom of speech impared. I don't know what the freedom of speech laws in Canada are, but here in the US you are (normally) allowed to say what you want. where you want, to whoever you want.
Yeah, that would explain why I'm able to sue the New York Times whenever they refuse to publish my stories on their front page, as well as why I'm able to go to presidential press conferences and scream out my opinions without being ejected. You seem to be a little confused about the First Amendment.
Geek> Okay, the site is progressing nicely. We're almost ready to roll out, all we have to do is pay our contractor for another two hours of work to add in the price verifi...
Suit> What? Another hour?!
I don't think that's the explanation. Getting the prices from client-supplied data is a design flaw that must have been built in from the beginning. It has nothing to do with whether you've added error checking at the last minute, though omitting error checks can certainly cause plenty of problems too.
I know how to prevent it - block PUT method access in your httpd.conf file.
I don't think so. From the description, it sounds like the applications are trusting the prices submitted in forms, rather than always getting the prices from a database. People can send information to form-handling programs without using the forms the programmers intended. The easiest way is to save the form locally and alter it. It's not necessary to put the form back on the Web server.
Of course, Disney has greatly benefited from public-domain fairy tales and myths as well as the work of Victor Hugo. But somehow it's unfair that the copyright of Disney's own works has to follow the established rules, so they've got to lobby for new legislation.
You know, for a group of people who seem to think that high school bullies deserve the death penalty, Slashdotters are sure quick to defend the rights of people who pick on others for non-clique related reasons.
So people who have been victimized, but not for reasons of race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation, aren't particularly excited about laws saying that people victimized for those reasons are more worthy of protection than they are, and that the victimizers should be punished more severely than those who victimized them. What do you find odd about that?
I think until such time as banner ads incude sound and video, and can hence be creative and entertaining, they will just become more and more obnoxious.
Sure, there's nothing like sound and video to make a banner less obnoxious.
I have too many friends who build a site in MS Word and save it as HTML, then upload. I'm not kidding. I challenged one guy to build a page from start to finish, time himself, show me the end result, and let me build a similar page from scratch by hand. I beat his time, and my file was about 25% smaller.
Only 25%? Did the guy use an unusually restrained authoring program, or was your hand coding incredibly bloated?
Guess who those "big companies" would be that were writing the ATC software. Probably the airlines. Think they might be tempted to give their airplanes the best routes and send the competitors out to sea? Think they might write it to favor faster airplanes and deny service to General Aviation?
That's right. With closed-source software, you wouldn't know that was happening -- in fact, we don't really know it isn't happening right now. But I thought you were trying to argue for using closed source.
If a page starts with <HTML>, ends with </HTML>, and has a myriad of other html tags in it, chances are it's html and the admin screwed up.
Then let the admin fix it. The way MS handles it, there's no way for the admin to send a text file that IE thinks looks like an HTML file. Much like Web designers who set all text to size 1, MS is making things difficult or impossible for the clueful in order to make things slightly better for the clueless.
I don't know what version of ie you are using, but ie4+ supports text/plain just fine
Try sending it a text document that contains HTML. For example, take an HTML document, rename it to have a.txt extension, and put it on your server. NN will display the HTML source (as it should, and as you configured the server to have it do), but IE will look inside the document, think "Oho! I recognize this -- it's HTML; the server admin must have screwed up," and display it just as if you'd sent it as text/html. Similar things happen with application/octet-stream. And since IE ignores those content types, there's no way to fix the problem, whatever you do on the server end. And Microsoft thinks this violation of standards is a feature, not a bug.
I'm surprised that they didn't say anything about Microsoft's Embrace and Extend program. I've seen Netscape
get a bad rap ALOT because it poorly renders poorly written code.
I'd say it does the right thing alot and guesses a lot less at what the developer was trying to do. But the way it
looks to the average user is "This site works in IE, but not in Netscape, Netscape must suck." Usually its the page
that sucks in my experience.
If you use NN, you'll notice unclosed TABLEs on the Microsoft site and on pages produced with Microsoft tools all over the Web. I'm shocked, shocked that you suggest it was anything more than a simple coincidence that those pages contain an HTML error that make them unreadable for NN.
This would be a biting and insightful comment if Internet Explorer didn't have the most comprehensive support
for W3C standards of any browser in existence.
What do you think point 3.2 is referring to? As far as I know, IE is the only browser that departs from the HTTP standard by ignoring text/plain as a content type. I don't consider a browser that thinks "Sure, the server says it's text/plain, but I know better" to have "comprehensive support for W3C standards".
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just x.com and x.org. Q.com is registered to Qwest Communications, and z.com is registered to Nissan North America. I'm pretty sure both used to belong to other organizations. Wasn't z.com a magazine of some sort?
It's official now, but a few years ago a company had it and was taking advantage of consumer confusion to pass through domain registrations to the real Internic (whose site was at www.internic.net) at a large markup. Presumably, some of these exclusions are designed to prevent that sort of fraud.
I figured the use of "tomb" was intentional. After all, it's where you put dead trees.
Who said I was using MS products? I was complaining about the garbage that other people who are using MS products send me. Are you saying I should just refuse to receive e-mail from any of them? It's a thought, I suppose, but it seems a bit harsh to refuse to communicate with my less technically inclined friends and relatives simply because they're unaware that Bill & Co. are causing them to produce nonstandard messages.
Assuming that communicating "just fine" means sending HTML-formatted messages using Microsoft-specific character codings (non-Unicode curly quotes, etc.) and expecting the recipient to deal with it. Hotmail even changed their default settings recently so that there isn't even a plain-text alternative included in the message anymore.
It's not that the filters aren't perfect -- it's that they don't do what they claim. They leave many pornographic sites unblocked, and they block many sites that they have no legitimate reason to block (some apparently for political reasons). The filtering requirement is simply a huge handout of public money to the software companies selling the snake oil^W^W filters. Why should we support the fraud?
But how does it benefit the advertisers for him to remember never to buy their products? I thought the purpose of the advertising was to increase sales, not simply to make a brand name well known. Otherwise the companies might as well commit terrorist acts as a way of gaining publicity.
The problem is that Slashdot (along with other carriers) is effectively forced to remove content simply because someone claims it violates copyright. It doesn't matter whether there's an actual violation. Thus organizations like the Scientologists are given a powerful weapon to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
It's even worse than that, from a logistical standpoint. It's not just a matter of having a single number for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction charges taxes on different items at different rates. For example, in many places groceries aren't taxed at all but snacks are, and the definition of "snack" varies from place to place. Any software for handling taxes would have to know about all the local laws regarding classification of items and tax rates for each, and it would have to be updated every time any state legislature or city council decides to change the tax law.
Probably the transcriber couldn't understand the word.
Yeah, that would explain why I'm able to sue the New York Times whenever they refuse to publish my stories on their front page, as well as why I'm able to go to presidential press conferences and scream out my opinions without being ejected. You seem to be a little confused about the First Amendment.
I don't think that's the explanation. Getting the prices from client-supplied data is a design flaw that must have been built in from the beginning. It has nothing to do with whether you've added error checking at the last minute, though omitting error checks can certainly cause plenty of problems too.
I don't think so. From the description, it sounds like the applications are trusting the prices submitted in forms, rather than always getting the prices from a database. People can send information to form-handling programs without using the forms the programmers intended. The easiest way is to save the form locally and alter it. It's not necessary to put the form back on the Web server.
Of course, Disney has greatly benefited from public-domain fairy tales and myths as well as the work of Victor Hugo. But somehow it's unfair that the copyright of Disney's own works has to follow the established rules, so they've got to lobby for new legislation.
True, but then software companies seem to expect courts to uphold their meaningless EULAs all the time.
So people who have been victimized, but not for reasons of race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation, aren't particularly excited about laws saying that people victimized for those reasons are more worthy of protection than they are, and that the victimizers should be punished more severely than those who victimized them. What do you find odd about that?
Careful. The organization is called Ad Cops. No need to smear Adbusters, which as far as I can see is completely unrelated.
Sure, there's nothing like sound and video to make a banner less obnoxious.
Only 25%? Did the guy use an unusually restrained authoring program, or was your hand coding incredibly bloated?
That's right. With closed-source software, you wouldn't know that was happening -- in fact, we don't really know it isn't happening right now. But I thought you were trying to argue for using closed source.
Then let the admin fix it. The way MS handles it, there's no way for the admin to send a text file that IE thinks looks like an HTML file. Much like Web designers who set all text to size 1, MS is making things difficult or impossible for the clueful in order to make things slightly better for the clueless.
Try sending it a text document that contains HTML. For example, take an HTML document, rename it to have a .txt extension, and put it on your server. NN will display the HTML source (as it should, and as you configured the server to have it do), but IE will look inside the document, think "Oho! I recognize this -- it's HTML; the server admin must have screwed up," and display it just as if you'd sent it as text/html. Similar things happen with application/octet-stream. And since IE ignores those content types, there's no way to fix the problem, whatever you do on the server end. And Microsoft thinks this violation of standards is a feature, not a bug.
If you use NN, you'll notice unclosed TABLEs on the Microsoft site and on pages produced with Microsoft tools all over the Web. I'm shocked, shocked that you suggest it was anything more than a simple coincidence that those pages contain an HTML error that make them unreadable for NN.
What do you think point 3.2 is referring to? As far as I know, IE is the only browser that departs from the HTTP standard by ignoring text/plain as a content type. I don't consider a browser that thinks "Sure, the server says it's text/plain, but I know better" to have "comprehensive support for W3C standards".
Besides, people can donate their old computers. They can't donate their old Windows licenses.