I don't know about the US, but here in Sweden, there is a law from the BBS era that holds sites free from any responsibility of linking to copyrighted material, as long as they don't host the material themselves. That is what keeps ThePirateBay afloat (since that's basically the way Bittorrent works).
Standards are often silent on lots of details, and it's really up to the browser devs on how to do an implementation. For example, is padding included in the width of an element, or not? It depends on whether you're using IE or Mozilla.
Actually, from CSS 2.1, 8.1:
content edge or inner edge
The content edge surrounds the rectangle given by the width and height of the box, which often depend on the element's rendered content.
padding edge
The padding edge surrounds the box padding. If the padding has 0 width, the padding edge is the same as the content edge.
border edge
The border edge surrounds the box's border. If the border has 0 width, the border edge is the same as the padding edge.
margin edge or outer edge
The margin edge surrounds the box margin. If the margin has 0 width, the margin edge is the same as the border edge.
As you can see, the width of the padding is not included in the width of an element. This is even one of the things that Microsoft will fix in IE 7. Microsoft may not deserve all the flak it gets, but they most certainly deserve this -- not following the box model is one of the most notorious bugs in IE's CSS implementation. You may actually want to read the standards before you blame Microsoft's mistakes (or the mistakes of any other web browser implementor, for that matter -- I just couldn't think of any others that make any significant mistakes) on them the next time.
And I hate the two guys that use Billy-Bobs-Web-Browser-That-He-Wrote-In-A-Weekend telling me that I should support his browser.
And noone is telling you to (at least, if they are, you are in your full right to apply a clue stick to them). All you have to do is make sure that your site complies with the W3C's standards, and it will be Billy Bob's fault if his web browser doesn't render your site correctly.
I don't want to give 100% of the people a crappy UI because 0.001% of my potential market doesn't support a feature.
I would argue that if you try to use a hypertext media (such as the WWW) as a "user interface", you're already doing something wrong, but I can save that for another discussion.
That doesn't really seem too far out. I've bought S-ATA drives from WDC, Seagate and Hitachi, and I've never got a S-ATA cable with the drive. Nor did I expect one. I expected it just as much as I'd have expected to get an IDE cable with a P-ATA drive. The cables are normally shipped with the mothersboards and controller cards.
As for finding S-ATA cables in stores, I can imagine that being hard two and a half years ago, when virtually noone had even heard of S-ATA. These days, I don't think there's a single computer store that does not have them.
Actually, you don't even have to make stuff up to be funny here. This is taken directly FTFA:
Why does this matter? It has to do with critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces. Taken individually, Web 2.0 techniques like harnessing collective intelligence, radical decentralization, The Long Tail are quite powerful, but they all have a potency much greater than their simple sum and they strongly reinforce each other.
I didn't even add the emphasize myself. This is taken from the paragraph with the heading "Web 2.0 Has Excellent Feng Shui". Which, in case you wondered, is supposed to be "a reason why Web 2.0 matters"...
Want to impress people. Show me an AMD X2 system with SLI and four really fast big drives in a RAID 0+1 that is totally silent and does need to have it's coolant tank filled. Oh and it has to fit under my desk.
Personally, I think SLI is among the top of the most pointless ideas that have been hatched in recent years. It costs twice as much, takes up twice as many PCIE slots, draws twice as much power, makes twice as much noise (well, not by the dB measure), and what do you get? Maybe twice the performance, but many applications don't even show that much. Your expensive SLI setup will also most likely be obsoleted by the next GPU core nVidia releases. And for what? Running Doom 3 at 1600x1200 and 80 FPS instead of 1280x1024 and 60 FPS? Sorry, but I just don't see whatever could justify the choice of buying a SLI setup. It scales less than linearily in performance, while the performance of a single GPU core increases exponentially over time. Why not just wait half a year and buy the newest nVidia card instead?
Sure, I'm no gamer (the only thing my 3D acceleration ever gets used for is the fancy glxhacks in xscreensaver), so maybe I just don't understand it, but does someone have a SLI setup and really feels it was worth it? If so, did it feel worth it for any other reason than getting a higher 3DMark score than anyone else?
I would believe that browser developers don't put CAs in the root CA set without very good reason. I haven't been requesting any certificates myself (I run my own CA instead for home use), but I believe that all the CAs in the standard browsers' root CA lists do very stringent control of the applicants.
After all, if they didn't, they wouldn't remain in the browsers' root CA list for very long.
You will get a error dialog in the browser because YOUR browser certificate store probably doesn't have the signing CA certificate the attacker used to create the SSL cert for the rogue web server in the first place.
Yes, well, that was exactly what I was referring to. One shouldn't even begin to suspect that a bank would have a web server certificate that wasn't signed by one of the big CAs.
That oughtn't be a great problem, however, since your bank (hopefully?) uses a SSL certificate to ensure you that you are on the right web site. If you click past the SSL warning that says that the certificate doesn't match the domain name when you go to do some on-line banking, you really shouldn't be all too surprised to find all your money gone the next day.
A $notnerd sees the requirement as a black box, they don't care about the internals. They've probably been told by some techie/salesman that it will address some problem they have. For this person turnkey seems perfect, $company sells $product which is billed as an 'identity managment solution'. A magic black box solution to a black box problem, their work is done - now it is IT's problem.
I agree completely with that, but my main point is that I think that this "turnkey solution" should be a separate product -- an analogy to metapackages (like GNOME), if you will. This metapackage, which would be the already existing components plus shrink-wrapped config files, could then be sold to corporate purchasers as an "identity management solution". Optimally, it should be tailored to each company. My point is that it should not be part of the directory server, and probably not even part of the Fedora Core distribution.
Maybe it should be part of RHEL, but I'd still see these kinds of turnkey solutions as something that should really be a consultant task. Each company or organization has disparate requirements and therefore, I think each case should be examined individually. I think that in general, open source software should remain the kind of general solution that it is today, and not implement 10+ buttons for each individual scenario. It might be a good idea that Red Hat could produce a number of specialized RHEL distros for the most common scenarios, but RHEL and FC themselves should remain generic.
To you it isn't, but what happens when you leave? It's much easier to recruit someone to maintain a push button solution
Most commonly, the experienced administrator would develop more or less a "push button solution", in the form of a collection of scripts to handle the most common tasks. Thus, when I quit, the next admin could just push the buttons I've prepared for myself. If he doesn't want to dive deeper, he probably shouldn't have to. Of course, it cannot be enough emphasized that the admin who develops a system should document it properly. The thing is, the "push button solution" developed locally will handle any particularities of the organization it was developed by and for, while general turnkey solutions (is that an oxymoron?) will always leave deficiencies since they cannot be tailored to the needs of the organization it will be used by.
but OSS provides no turnkey solutions for this (yet).
Maybe this is just me, but I've never understood why people need "turnkey solutions" for things like these. Updating your LDAP, Kerberos, NSS and PAM configs manually isn't exactly hard as it is. If you want to make it easy to set up multiple workstations with this setup, just use Kickstart (or a shell script on NFS...).
Really, I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just really not seeing what this need to click a single button for every possible setup comes from. Rather than trying to provide every possible setup from the start, as Microsoft does (and which much of the complexity in Windows derives from), isn't it better to have a generic solution that can be tailored to one's specific need, instead?
This isn't exactly the first time RedHat has done something like this. Last year, they also bought Sistina and released GFS for free. I think they have done other such things as well, but I can't remember any off the top of my head.
...but I've decided to cut my nose off to spite my face by boycotting Sony because of Sony BMG's recent DRM-o-rama.
Seriously, I think that boycotting Sony in its entirety is a little overkill just because one of their divisions did something outrageous. The rest of Sony still does great things, and boycotting Sony BMG should be enough. In a company as large as Sony, there is enough competition between divisions anyway that a boycott of Sony BMG may hurt their budget just as much as boycotting an independent company would do to them. Boycotting Sony in its entirety feels a bit like boycotting the entire IT industry just because Microsoft screwed you over at one time.
Are you suggesting that Open Source software cannot compete? That it depends on Microsoft being hamstrung by litigation?
By no means. I'm merely suggesting that it's quite fun, and feels good inside of me.;)
Aside from that though, I would also argue, that it would be good if Microsoft lost a lot of marketshare regardlessly of whether it is from open source competition or from litigation, or from anywhere else for that matter. This is because if Microsoft loses marketshare, they lose much of their power to strongarm users into their proprietary standards and file formats, which benefits all users, since it will make it easier to exchange information in general.
Microsoft isn't really a big software patent litigator.
Even so, they hold a patent on both double-clicking and the FAT filesystem, TODO comments on code, and who knows what more stupidness, and they have most certainly been beating their chest and threatening people about their patent portfolio, and they have been lobbying for software patents in Europe. My point was just that it is quite delightful to see them being at the other end of it.
This patent does not hurt Microsoft. They can work around the patent and it won't cost them a dime beyond the development costs. Instead, this patent hurts users. It's not Microsoft that has to click an extra time to interact with an embedded object. It's the users.
But that in turn hurts Microsoft. If their products become less streamlined than they were, they are less attractive for users.
That wasn't my real point, though. I hate software patents as much as the next guy (and yes, the next guy really hates their guts). I was just trying to point out that it's not as if there wasn't anything to take delight in. Even if the cause of this was bad and its consequences are worse, it's still delightful to see Microsoft being at the other end of a patent lawsuit, after all the pro-s/w-patent propaganda they've been spreading.
I do not agree with your arguments. If you say that anything that is like a human will be a rule-based expert system, that would include real humans as well, wouldn't it? If humans can exist in "the Real World", why couldn't they emulated by a computer?
In my opinion, "human behavior" seems to be basically a neural network, with an array of inputs from the limbic system. As it seems, the NN provides "true intelligence" (whatever that is, really...), while the limbic system augments the NN's operation with a number of primitive motivations. The limbic system does, if anything, seem to fit the pattern of a rule-based expert system pretty well. If that is somewhat true so far, there's no reason why someone couldn't build a "True AI" program and plug in the same kind of expert system to provide primitive motivations. If you make that expert system as true to the human limbic system as possible, you'll probably end up with a reasonably human-like AI, which might just pass the Turing test.
This is because you're only being exposed to "Skip-Intro" sites built by incompetent Flash users that don't know how to code in Actionscript and so are left making movieClips and timelines. Problem is that movieClips, especially invisible ones, CONTINUE to play little blinking animations etc in the background and will hog your CPU. It's important to note that this is NOT a problem with Flash or the plugin, you can put that problem squarely on the head of idiot users.
While it is true that that isn't the fault of flash itself, it is also true that not only does Flash allow such uses, but also encourage them. That's the reason I would be glad of Flash disappeared off the surface of the planet, because as long as it's here, people will go on creating that kind of Flash content.
Macromedia's website is built on 80% Flash content, does your CPU run at 30% + to view it? No. Why? Because they have users that *know* how to build proper Flash animations.
Actually, it does require 30%+ while it's animating stuff, but that's not really the issue anyway. The problem is that they are using it at all -- and for what? For fancy menus and completely useless advertising of their own products: things that could just as well be done with some standard, non-interactive HTML. When I browse the web, I don't want stuff popping up and changing the page left and right (changing the color and/or underlining of links when hovering the with the mouse is already borderline). I want web pages to be predictable and readable, not interactive and... flashy (multiple puns intended). The web is (and, IMNSHO, should remain) a hypertext media, not an advertising poster, application platform or visual design playground. As I said before, how about writing actual content, rather than mere presentation?
It also breaks a lot of standards: Flash content isn't human-readable, hardly machine-readable (it is a more or less closed format, after all) and it is more or less non-indexable. It's not too easy to write a new web browser if Flash is required to browse the web.
Try viewing a page with 7+ animated gifs and see what happens to your cpu.
Where did you get this weird idea that it would be OK to put 7+ animated GIFs (or even so much as a single one) on a web page?
I can't believe I'm seeing this kind of discussion here on Slashdot. I thought more or less everyone here agreed that Flash is the single largest scourge on the web (possibly, but only possibly, after MSIE).
I am sick and tired on websites that use 30% of my CPU just to show a useless, animated logo, or using Flash menus that can't be searched in or for, and unable of being indexed by search engines, and that break back and forward navigation, or waiting 10 seconds or more when a new page loads just to be shown the intro animation for that page.
How about starting to put content, rather than mere presentation, on your pages instead? I, for one, would almost be happier to see Flash eradicated from the web than to see Microsoft eradicated from the OS market.
If you have read permissions shouldn't you be able to make a copy and set the permissions any way you like on that copy anyway
Yes, but that isn't consider a flaw. The execute bit isn't there to make sure that noone can interpret the contents of a file. Its purpose is to protect the S[UG]ID bits.
If you have read permission on a program file, you can always do whatever the program does (whether that be by running it on the CPU, running it in an emulator or by just interpreting it in your head). The purpose of the execute permission is just to make sure that noone unauthorized runs that SUID program you just wrote.
# ls test test.c #/lib/ld-linux.so.2./test barda! # mount -o remount,noexec. #/lib/ld-linux.so.2./test ./test: error while loading shared libraries:./test: failed to map segment from shared object: Operation not permitted
If you have no read but execute (0444), you can execute the program regardless of permission setting
Yes, but that's the idea. If you can read a file, then of course you can execute it -- execution of a program consists of little more than the CPU reading it, after all. The execute bit on files isn't to prevent people from interpreting their contents, it's just to protect the S[UG]ID bits. Even if you couldn't run the file on the CPU if you didn't have execute permission on it, as long as you can read it, you can even emulate it if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the US, but here in Sweden, there is a law from the BBS era that holds sites free from any responsibility of linking to copyrighted material, as long as they don't host the material themselves. That is what keeps ThePirateBay afloat (since that's basically the way Bittorrent works).
As for finding S-ATA cables in stores, I can imagine that being hard two and a half years ago, when virtually noone had even heard of S-ATA. These days, I don't think there's a single computer store that does not have them.
'Nuff said.
Sure, I'm no gamer (the only thing my 3D acceleration ever gets used for is the fancy glxhacks in xscreensaver), so maybe I just don't understand it, but does someone have a SLI setup and really feels it was worth it? If so, did it feel worth it for any other reason than getting a higher 3DMark score than anyone else?
After all, if they didn't, they wouldn't remain in the browsers' root CA list for very long.
Then again, if the user goes to www.spoofedbank.com instead of www.bankofamerica.com, then it's not a problem with DNS.
That oughtn't be a great problem, however, since your bank (hopefully?) uses a SSL certificate to ensure you that you are on the right web site. If you click past the SSL warning that says that the certificate doesn't match the domain name when you go to do some on-line banking, you really shouldn't be all too surprised to find all your money gone the next day.
Maybe it should be part of RHEL, but I'd still see these kinds of turnkey solutions as something that should really be a consultant task. Each company or organization has disparate requirements and therefore, I think each case should be examined individually. I think that in general, open source software should remain the kind of general solution that it is today, and not implement 10+ buttons for each individual scenario. It might be a good idea that Red Hat could produce a number of specialized RHEL distros for the most common scenarios, but RHEL and FC themselves should remain generic.
Most commonly, the experienced administrator would develop more or less a "push button solution", in the form of a collection of scripts to handle the most common tasks. Thus, when I quit, the next admin could just push the buttons I've prepared for myself. If he doesn't want to dive deeper, he probably shouldn't have to. Of course, it cannot be enough emphasized that the admin who develops a system should document it properly. The thing is, the "push button solution" developed locally will handle any particularities of the organization it was developed by and for, while general turnkey solutions (is that an oxymoron?) will always leave deficiencies since they cannot be tailored to the needs of the organization it will be used by.Really, I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just really not seeing what this need to click a single button for every possible setup comes from. Rather than trying to provide every possible setup from the start, as Microsoft does (and which much of the complexity in Windows derives from), isn't it better to have a generic solution that can be tailored to one's specific need, instead?
This isn't exactly the first time RedHat has done something like this. Last year, they also bought Sistina and released GFS for free. I think they have done other such things as well, but I can't remember any off the top of my head.
Aside from that though, I would also argue, that it would be good if Microsoft lost a lot of marketshare regardlessly of whether it is from open source competition or from litigation, or from anywhere else for that matter. This is because if Microsoft loses marketshare, they lose much of their power to strongarm users into their proprietary standards and file formats, which benefits all users, since it will make it easier to exchange information in general.
That wasn't my real point, though. I hate software patents as much as the next guy (and yes, the next guy really hates their guts). I was just trying to point out that it's not as if there wasn't anything to take delight in. Even if the cause of this was bad and its consequences are worse, it's still delightful to see Microsoft being at the other end of a patent lawsuit, after all the pro-s/w-patent propaganda they've been spreading.
No matter how much you hate the weapons, it's still pretty sweet to see their greatest proponent taste its own bitter medicine, though. ;)
In my opinion, "human behavior" seems to be basically a neural network, with an array of inputs from the limbic system. As it seems, the NN provides "true intelligence" (whatever that is, really...), while the limbic system augments the NN's operation with a number of primitive motivations. The limbic system does, if anything, seem to fit the pattern of a rule-based expert system pretty well. If that is somewhat true so far, there's no reason why someone couldn't build a "True AI" program and plug in the same kind of expert system to provide primitive motivations. If you make that expert system as true to the human limbic system as possible, you'll probably end up with a reasonably human-like AI, which might just pass the Turing test.
It also breaks a lot of standards: Flash content isn't human-readable, hardly machine-readable (it is a more or less closed format, after all) and it is more or less non-indexable. It's not too easy to write a new web browser if Flash is required to browse the web.
Where did you get this weird idea that it would be OK to put 7+ animated GIFs (or even so much as a single one) on a web page?I am sick and tired on websites that use 30% of my CPU just to show a useless, animated logo, or using Flash menus that can't be searched in or for, and unable of being indexed by search engines, and that break back and forward navigation, or waiting 10 seconds or more when a new page loads just to be shown the intro animation for that page.
How about starting to put content, rather than mere presentation, on your pages instead? I, for one, would almost be happier to see Flash eradicated from the web than to see Microsoft eradicated from the OS market.
If you have read permission on a program file, you can always do whatever the program does (whether that be by running it on the CPU, running it in an emulator or by just interpreting it in your head). The purpose of the execute permission is just to make sure that noone unauthorized runs that SUID program you just wrote.