It really isn't a problem. Would you sit there, knowing what you know now, if someone tried to take over a plane with a 1" long blade? Hijackings will never again be a problem in America.
XHTML is not intended to replace HTML. "Moving the web to XHMTL" is a HORRIBLE idea. XHTML, served properly (which it very rarely is) breaks entirely with a single error. XHTML should only be used if you have a specific, quantifiable reason to do so - and it must be served as such. Otherwise, you're only giving the browser funny-looking HTML with a bunch of slashes on the end of tags.
Truthfully I'd love to see a private-sector implementation of a 'safe airline'. There would be no carry-on luggage, pockets would be empty, and everybody would get an MRI on the way in to look for internally concealed weapons. I'd like to see the opposite - an airline that boards outside the terminal, and passengers are encouraged to bring defensive weaponry on board. I bet it would do very well indeed.
For a website? I completely disagree.
If you want to do anything at all on more than one browser, you need to have a DTD. It is the switch that turns the browser from "Quirks mode" to standards-compliancy (or as close as some browser *COUGH* ie *COUGH* get.)
I looked all of my linux box, and for the life of me, I can't find a "Command Prompt".
I even dropped down to terminal and searched through all my text files with grep! Nothing!
You're looking at it backwards - embrace the command line. Do things in a GUI only after you know what you're doing - otherwise, its like learning API function before you understand basic language syntax.
I recommend Arch Linux. Its easy enough anyone can set it up, but you are forced to modify every config file that's used basically. Sit down with a second PC, go to their Wiki, and install. I promise, spend 6 or so hours toying with that (including install time), and you'll not have this problem again.
Wrong. MSIE has always been a driving force behind and an early adopter of web standards - they just don't seem to be able to finish, and never go back and fix their old stuff. IE isn't a money-maker for MS, so they dont' throw money at it. IMHO, they should open the code and let the community have at it, with them for oversight. MSIE is a very visible part of Windows, and leveraging the community like that to polish their image would be a brilliant move.
I don't think they mean "don't ship it with Windows."
IE is inseperable from Windows. It is not possible to uninstall it, to my knowledge. I think they are trying to say that it should be a seperate program from the OS, not something that it wholly depends on and cannot be removed.
I won't comment on the ethical issues surrounding the whole thing, but it would be convenient if that happened. Implications are interesting though --- what happens when someone wants the file manager seperate? What they're realyl trying to do here is force Microsoft to redefine what an OS is.
MSIE certainly does hold back web standards, but not because its MS, so much as because its closed-source and on a long release schedule. If MS opened development on IE, Firefox and Opera would suddenly lose 90% of their userbase.
I'm a photographer and a web designer, and the only reason I've not ditched windows entirely at this point is that I can't get Photoshop CS3 to work properly. Yes, it can be made to run in Wine (3 versions old), or you can put it in a VM(and take the performance hit) - but its just not worth it. So I have a Windows box and a linux box, side-by-side, and bounce back and forth as I work.
Put Photoshop on linux, and you'll start a flock towards it. You'd be surprised what us "non-geeks" can learn.
Each layer can take up to that 20MB. A typical image I work on has 15-20 layers when I am done. Then you have undo states - say, 20 undo states. 20MB x 20undos x 20layers = 8GB.
Granted, most images will be on the order of 100-200MB, but still, this is huge.
I realize yu're talking linux, but check out Blackbow for Windows. It's a shell replacement for Win NT/2k+, and is quite beautiful, and can be modified to your heart's content. I'm sure something like this exists for linux, i'm not sure where yet. I've only been dabling in bb4win for abot amonth so far:) www.bb4win.org
NICE - reverse descrimination. My fiance if 1/8th Cherokee, we are 100% eligible to get her a full scholarship to a state school. First in her family to attend, Native American bloodline, and she grew up in a low income home. WE are workign our asses off, pyaing for college AS WE GO. Anyone can do it. If you can't, you'e mkaign an excuse - I could't find a job for 3 months, so you know what i did? I took pictures. I stuffed envelopes. I set up a couple networks. The point is, the money is there for whatever you want if you'd just get up off your lazy ass and find it. Black hair and dark skin doesn't keep you from it, the society of entitlement does. I don't need your money, tyvm, i'll get my own.
Its a WAR. Its dirty, and the press woudl have a heyday. I know of no treaties, no agreements, nothing that say that a country is required to assign ANY rights to a foreign national, operating with lethal force against troops or citizens of an occupied country. These people are known as sabetuers(sp?). IN WW2, several germans were landed on teh east coast via U-Boat. They were arrest, charged, and executed. This is no different. While i agree that open government is best, there are some times when the public is not supposed to know what's going on. There are hundreds of US citizens in and out of Gitmo. I don't know what's going on there, but I am confident that not everyone in the military is a complete cold-hearted bastard. They aren't pulling out their thumbnails or stretching them on a rack, or we would know about it.
In short, enemy troops, in uniform, are protected under the Geneva Convention and otehr treaties. Spies are not protected. There may be some unsavory things goign on, things you do not agree with, but they aren't illegal. The only thing i see as bordering on illegal would be the guy caught in Afghanistan. OTOH, they could easily revoke his citizenship. He did, after all, swear allegiance to an organization in direct competition wuth the US. At which point he is a spy. Q.E.D.
Nah, all he's saying is the by having internal/external IPs different, the vuln scanners don't work. Script kiddies aren't looking to break into YOUR network, they want to break into A network. It doesn't maek your network more secure, only less interesting to a quick scan.
they called me on it lol. Maybe it doesn't PREVENT you from getting it, jsut lessens the likelyhood - i'm a poor college kid, not very great credit yet, jsut startign out.
One caveat for having no POTS - Store credit cards. Household bank, the supplier for many, if not most, store cards, will not issue a line of credit to anyone who lists a cell as their primary phone, regardless of credit. I found this out when trying to get a card for a jewelry store to buy an engagement ring. By putting it on a card, i got a 15% discount. Applied w/ my cell number, was rejected. Then i put my parent's home phone on it and was approved. The person on the phone said that 85% of all cards issued to ppl w/ a cell only never even had the first payment paid. Go fig.
While similar it is a bit diferent. The crimes are of a VERY different nature, and sex offenders are not published in a newspaper, you actually have to seek out the lists.
Ya. Gotta hate that "pesky old Constitution". I mean, it only protects our rights, which THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is one. Pesky. Pfft. I don't care WHAT laws they pass, i can only wait in hope for the day a federal agent tries to come take my guns. I have not only the legal right, but the moral right (in my view) to protect my family. I will do whatever is neccessary to maintain that ability, and that include killing. I am NOT the only one to feel that way either.
It doesn't "damage the family", becuase as a rule, gays adn lesbians do not HAVE families. Yes, they can adopt, which I am all for. My way of thinking is this: If the gay/lesbian couple are upstanding, decent citizens, the child is better off in thier care than in the state's. This saves the states money, provides a better life for the child, and pretty much is a good thing all around. The only catch is that i think there shoudl NEVER be a situation where a homosexual couple are given custody of a child over a traditional family with comparable standing. A child needs both a mother and a father in their life. Two mother and two fathers are able to rear a child, but that child will struggle more in their adolescence. Traditional families balance well as a rule, and are superior in terms of their ability to raise a healthy child.
Also, i don't think it is acceptable for a heterosexual to discuss sexual relations in the workplace PERIOD. From personal experience, gays/lesbians seem to overcompensate with the "free speech". I see nothing wrong with a man talking about his boyfriend, but there is a line that is simply not to be crossed. Homosexuality is NOT the norm, and i hope it never is. I don't want to hear about the escapades you had last nigth at the bar, no matter what your "orientation".
And on that topic, i personally do not believe that a person is born gay. There is no biological support for such a claim, there is no "gay gene". Beyond that, the supposed gay animals we hear about are simply ludicrous. Animals do not derive pleasure from the sexual act, it is purely a biological function. Humans are the only animals on this planet that have sex not only outside the female's period of fertility, but on a regular basis even without the possibility of a child being conceived. Being gay is a choice - one i would never make, but one that is none of my business. I have nothing against gays, and in fact know quite a few. Everyone needs to make decisions in their life, and being gay is one of them. If you want to, go ahead, but don't expect me to give your partner health benefits, or to recognize you as "married".
I am very much "anti-gay-rights". I don't think marriage should be debased into something so liberal. I don't think gays should have any special laws, society has shown that it is tolerant.
Now, by the same token, you are an ignorant bigot. What two men or women do in their own home is their business. Just because i don't agree with it doesn't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on what they ARE doing. I don't want to have to watch them have sex in a park though. Child molestation, beastiality - those are both things that by definition are done without the consent of the other party. These are wrong, both morally and legally. There isn't even a comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
It really isn't a problem. Would you sit there, knowing what you know now, if someone tried to take over a plane with a 1" long blade? Hijackings will never again be a problem in America.
XHTML is not intended to replace HTML. "Moving the web to XHMTL" is a HORRIBLE idea. XHTML, served properly (which it very rarely is) breaks entirely with a single error. XHTML should only be used if you have a specific, quantifiable reason to do so - and it must be served as such. Otherwise, you're only giving the browser funny-looking HTML with a bunch of slashes on the end of tags.
For a website? I completely disagree. If you want to do anything at all on more than one browser, you need to have a DTD. It is the switch that turns the browser from "Quirks mode" to standards-compliancy (or as close as some browser *COUGH* ie *COUGH* get.)
I looked all of my linux box, and for the life of me, I can't find a "Command Prompt". I even dropped down to terminal and searched through all my text files with grep! Nothing!
You're looking at it backwards - embrace the command line. Do things in a GUI only after you know what you're doing - otherwise, its like learning API function before you understand basic language syntax. I recommend Arch Linux. Its easy enough anyone can set it up, but you are forced to modify every config file that's used basically. Sit down with a second PC, go to their Wiki, and install. I promise, spend 6 or so hours toying with that (including install time), and you'll not have this problem again.
So let me get this straight.... They could sell 200% less and make a profit?
So, if they sold 1,000,000 copies before... 200% less would mean they had to BUY 1,000,000 copies now. How does that work?
You fail at math.
Wrong. MSIE has always been a driving force behind and an early adopter of web standards - they just don't seem to be able to finish, and never go back and fix their old stuff. IE isn't a money-maker for MS, so they dont' throw money at it. IMHO, they should open the code and let the community have at it, with them for oversight. MSIE is a very visible part of Windows, and leveraging the community like that to polish their image would be a brilliant move.
I don't think they mean "don't ship it with Windows." IE is inseperable from Windows. It is not possible to uninstall it, to my knowledge. I think they are trying to say that it should be a seperate program from the OS, not something that it wholly depends on and cannot be removed. I won't comment on the ethical issues surrounding the whole thing, but it would be convenient if that happened. Implications are interesting though --- what happens when someone wants the file manager seperate? What they're realyl trying to do here is force Microsoft to redefine what an OS is. MSIE certainly does hold back web standards, but not because its MS, so much as because its closed-source and on a long release schedule. If MS opened development on IE, Firefox and Opera would suddenly lose 90% of their userbase.
I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am! In a free state, you can.
I'm a photographer and a web designer, and the only reason I've not ditched windows entirely at this point is that I can't get Photoshop CS3 to work properly. Yes, it can be made to run in Wine (3 versions old), or you can put it in a VM(and take the performance hit) - but its just not worth it. So I have a Windows box and a linux box, side-by-side, and bounce back and forth as I work. Put Photoshop on linux, and you'll start a flock towards it. You'd be surprised what us "non-geeks" can learn.
Each layer can take up to that 20MB. A typical image I work on has 15-20 layers when I am done. Then you have undo states - say, 20 undo states. 20MB x 20undos x 20layers = 8GB.
Granted, most images will be on the order of 100-200MB, but still, this is huge.
That would imply we are trying to catch them.
Removed? That's how you neutralize them!
Boody Armor is somewhat hard to obtain, and iirc, you might need a Class III certification to possess it... But you've got the right idea :)
I realize yu're talking linux, but check out Blackbow for Windows. It's a shell replacement for Win NT/2k+, and is quite beautiful, and can be modified to your heart's content. I'm sure something like this exists for linux, i'm not sure where yet. I've only been dabling in bb4win for abot amonth so far :) www.bb4win.org
NICE - reverse descrimination. My fiance if 1/8th Cherokee, we are 100% eligible to get her a full scholarship to a state school. First in her family to attend, Native American bloodline, and she grew up in a low income home. WE are workign our asses off, pyaing for college AS WE GO. Anyone can do it. If you can't, you'e mkaign an excuse - I could't find a job for 3 months, so you know what i did? I took pictures. I stuffed envelopes. I set up a couple networks. The point is, the money is there for whatever you want if you'd just get up off your lazy ass and find it. Black hair and dark skin doesn't keep you from it, the society of entitlement does. I don't need your money, tyvm, i'll get my own.
Its a WAR. Its dirty, and the press woudl have a heyday. I know of no treaties, no agreements, nothing that say that a country is required to assign ANY rights to a foreign national, operating with lethal force against troops or citizens of an occupied country. These people are known as sabetuers(sp?). IN WW2, several germans were landed on teh east coast via U-Boat. They were arrest, charged, and executed. This is no different. While i agree that open government is best, there are some times when the public is not supposed to know what's going on. There are hundreds of US citizens in and out of Gitmo. I don't know what's going on there, but I am confident that not everyone in the military is a complete cold-hearted bastard. They aren't pulling out their thumbnails or stretching them on a rack, or we would know about it. In short, enemy troops, in uniform, are protected under the Geneva Convention and otehr treaties. Spies are not protected. There may be some unsavory things goign on, things you do not agree with, but they aren't illegal. The only thing i see as bordering on illegal would be the guy caught in Afghanistan. OTOH, they could easily revoke his citizenship. He did, after all, swear allegiance to an organization in direct competition wuth the US. At which point he is a spy. Q.E.D.
Nah, all he's saying is the by having internal/external IPs different, the vuln scanners don't work. Script kiddies aren't looking to break into YOUR network, they want to break into A network. It doesn't maek your network more secure, only less interesting to a quick scan.
they called me on it lol. Maybe it doesn't PREVENT you from getting it, jsut lessens the likelyhood - i'm a poor college kid, not very great credit yet, jsut startign out.
One caveat for having no POTS - Store credit cards. Household bank, the supplier for many, if not most, store cards, will not issue a line of credit to anyone who lists a cell as their primary phone, regardless of credit. I found this out when trying to get a card for a jewelry store to buy an engagement ring. By putting it on a card, i got a 15% discount. Applied w/ my cell number, was rejected. Then i put my parent's home phone on it and was approved. The person on the phone said that 85% of all cards issued to ppl w/ a cell only never even had the first payment paid. Go fig.
While similar it is a bit diferent. The crimes are of a VERY different nature, and sex offenders are not published in a newspaper, you actually have to seek out the lists.
Ya. Gotta hate that "pesky old Constitution". I mean, it only protects our rights, which THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is one. Pesky. Pfft. I don't care WHAT laws they pass, i can only wait in hope for the day a federal agent tries to come take my guns. I have not only the legal right, but the moral right (in my view) to protect my family. I will do whatever is neccessary to maintain that ability, and that include killing. I am NOT the only one to feel that way either.
It doesn't "damage the family", becuase as a rule, gays adn lesbians do not HAVE families. Yes, they can adopt, which I am all for. My way of thinking is this: If the gay/lesbian couple are upstanding, decent citizens, the child is better off in thier care than in the state's. This saves the states money, provides a better life for the child, and pretty much is a good thing all around. The only catch is that i think there shoudl NEVER be a situation where a homosexual couple are given custody of a child over a traditional family with comparable standing. A child needs both a mother and a father in their life. Two mother and two fathers are able to rear a child, but that child will struggle more in their adolescence. Traditional families balance well as a rule, and are superior in terms of their ability to raise a healthy child.
Also, i don't think it is acceptable for a heterosexual to discuss sexual relations in the workplace PERIOD. From personal experience, gays/lesbians seem to overcompensate with the "free speech". I see nothing wrong with a man talking about his boyfriend, but there is a line that is simply not to be crossed. Homosexuality is NOT the norm, and i hope it never is. I don't want to hear about the escapades you had last nigth at the bar, no matter what your "orientation".
And on that topic, i personally do not believe that a person is born gay. There is no biological support for such a claim, there is no "gay gene". Beyond that, the supposed gay animals we hear about are simply ludicrous. Animals do not derive pleasure from the sexual act, it is purely a biological function. Humans are the only animals on this planet that have sex not only outside the female's period of fertility, but on a regular basis even without the possibility of a child being conceived. Being gay is a choice - one i would never make, but one that is none of my business. I have nothing against gays, and in fact know quite a few. Everyone needs to make decisions in their life, and being gay is one of them. If you want to, go ahead, but don't expect me to give your partner health benefits, or to recognize you as "married".
I am very much "anti-gay-rights". I don't think marriage should be debased into something so liberal. I don't think gays should have any special laws, society has shown that it is tolerant.
Now, by the same token, you are an ignorant bigot. What two men or women do in their own home is their business. Just because i don't agree with it doesn't (and shouldn't) have any bearing on what they ARE doing. I don't want to have to watch them have sex in a park though. Child molestation, beastiality - those are both things that by definition are done without the consent of the other party. These are wrong, both morally and legally. There isn't even a comparison.