FFS, I read this story on Firehose, downloaded the crack (for testing purposes only of course), and then realise it was from 1 year 1 day ago, not 1 day ago, so I (and probably 100 others) tagged it oldnews. How did this make the front page? Surely this crack is broken.
Yes yahoo.com edges google.com in Alexa stats, but both "sites" run on multiple domains internationally. Google in particular puts a lot of effort into directing people to their home countries page.
In the Alexa top 100, Yahoo! only has two domains,.com and.co.jp. Google has 10 domains in only the top 50, from.com to.co.in. I'm not counting sister sites like Flickr or Orkut here, just the search front pages in the various localizations.
If you total Yahoo!'s top 100 (just the two) you get 29.41% reach (3 month average), but Google's domains total to 44.42%, and that's only the top 50. So in reality, Google's search front end has 50% greater reach than Yahoo!'s search front.
... just as we touched down, a piece of debris punctured the wall and slammed into my leg.... My disbelief at the sound of rushing air through the hole was soon overtaken by a sickening crunch as the plane hit the ground hard and all too quickly we had stopped.
Yep, the plane was actually punctured and he was hit, you can see the hole on the RHS of the aircraft behind the wing, just under windows.
Anyway, his recollection indicates that the plane was punctured before it touched the ground. If that were the case, his "hole" would probably be the point of failure.
I think it is more likely that the puncture happened after the plane hit the ground, caused by debris from the right landing gear ripping away. It would be like this--plane touches down on grass (he thinks they're still smooth in the air); wheels dig in rip off, and punctures hull in quick succession (he has been hit); the plane starts scraping along the hull and engines (he feels the plane "hit the ground hard").
So it's probably just a slightly misleading passenger recollection, but something to think about while we're guessing about the control systems.
No solid casing has ever been put in a load of this magnitude. (The SRB's on the Shuttle never carried the full weight of the shuttle and they were axially loaded as opposed to have the load directly along the case).
a) Yes the SSME's reduce the (effective) mass of the Shuttle, but not to zero, in fact, probably only ~25% (that's guesswork).
b) Surely loading the casing vertically would be better than a "side load", which would twist the casing (compress the attached side and stretch the joins on the opposite side.
HTML 5, on the other hand, seems to be keeping object but also reviving iframe and embed. Meanwhile they are introducing a load of tags to do the same job - video, audio, etc. This is crazyness since it means you have to revise the markup language every time someone invents a new type of embedded object, whereas just using a single object tag for everything means your browser can determine the type of content from the MIME content type of the object and render it if supported.
Excellent point, give the browser an <object> tag, with width and height and a link, and if the link is HTML an <iframe> is created, or for an SWF the flash plugin is called. I don't know if all custom parameters can be accomodated, but I guess it's reasonable.
However, XHTML does need a modification IMHO: the spec states that XHTML which isn't well formed must not be rendered - I think it would be better to require the browser display a page saying something along the lines of "this page is broken, click this button to try and fix it - it may not render correctly".
Browser makers will seemlessly fix coding errors rather than display an error message first because it's better for the end users.
Browser makers serve their users, not standards people. It's in their best interest just to correct and display the code, and it's pretty easy. <p>'s can't be nested, so if you encounter a <p> before a closing </p>, just create the closing paragraph tag. Incorrectly nested tags (like <b><i></b></i>), just switch them around, no problem.
Sounds like JavaScript needs namespaces. About a year ago, in every PHP discussion here, people complained that PHP needed to support namespaces. At first I protested, then I decided to ask what namespaces were (I had a vague idea) and why they were useful, and var name clashes were the main reason.
Anyway, prefixes for each module/portlet, and minimal use of global objects can do the trick. Web code is like flight software anyway, you just want it to go fast and be reliable, hence the popularity of PHP and its massive library of functions (procedural-programming friendly) coupled with MySQL for it's speed and scaleability. <Insert similar reference to Perl/Python here even though I don't know or care for either>
You obviously looked at the Jupiter Ring photo, it's faint, so the noise tells you they had push the camera to its limits to get that one. They probably had to process out the glow from Jupiter too, which adds extra noise.
Your cell phone has a small lens (low light) and small CCD (susceptible to noise), and must take the shot in milliseconds, so it will be noisy for the same reasons.
Yeah, I think people want you to show it launching an application, maybe Firefox because it's well known and will show your level of network connectivity, plus demonstrate peripherals. All we had was monitor and mouse, maybe keyboard, sound if it works. Try to show 3D performance and video playback too.
Re:What backwards compatibility has it broken?
on
PHP 5.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
To be fair, this is primarily because PHP allows any clothead to write some POS code without respect for logic, security, or sanity - at which point it suddenly becomes the most popular module / mailing script / CMS / message board ever.
I see you've modded PHP-Nuke before!
As for register_globals, I don't feel it is a problem, if you allow variables to be injected into your code from outside then you haven't programmed properly. I always initalize them first, at the very least to NULL, to make it a kind of variable declaration. I never write:
if ($something) { $a=TRUE; }
if ($a) { //do something abusable }
I would always initialize $a at the if ($a) level before the if ($something) block. That said, it's good practice to use $_GET[], $_POST[], etc.
And safe mode? Isn't this just a unix permissions precaution, usually used by restrictive (free) PHP webhosts? I never even look at it.
No, which was basically my point. CSS doesn't make it difficult, Internet Explorer makes it difficult.
... which makes it totally useless to me.
Next.
Wow, I thought you were full of !#@$ until I checked out W3School's CSS display page.
Why are you referring to those guys? They are pretty sleazy. Why not refer to the authorative source for whether something is valid CSS or not?
Do they differ on this one? Only in level of detail.
The last time I checked there was only display: none/block/inline.
display: table-cell has been around since 1998, and most browsers implemented it ages ago. You haven't heard of it because nobody uses it. Nobody uses it because it isn't in any tutorials. It isn't in any tutorials because Internet Explorer doesn't support it.
Oh please, I forgot it because I don't use it because it's of no use to me because IE doesn't support it. Boo hoo.
Can you crawl out from under your rock and tell me whether IE7 supports this? That would be one useful thing from this conversation.
In summary to any readers, regardless of the worthiness of Microsoft and Internet Explorer, you must learn to use a smaller, crippled subset of CSS (and workarounds) if you're going to web design, mainly because of the deficiencies of IE. You can do some pretty fancy Flash-like stuff if you use CSS that's available in Mozilla/Opera/KHTML, but downloading software is not what the internet is about, it's going to an internet cafe and checking out a site with whatever's available.
Wow, I thought you were full of !#@$ until I checked out W3School's CSS display page. Does this actually work on IE? I'll probably test it, but it would be nice to know. The last time I checked there was only display: none/block/inline.
At first I thought this was just a CSS replacement for <table><tr><td>, but it does truly mean that you can completely change your layout by switching stylesheets, while keeping the "layout power" of tables. Using absolute positioning or floating blocks always seemed a little deficient to me.
Here's the rub. Spirit and Opportunity were only expected to run a couple months. Intended is a whole other word.
I don't know about it being the difference between two words. It's more like they were designed for 90 days, that's how they got their funding (i.e., if they lasted less, there explanations would have been required), it had to be demonstrated that all components/systems could last for that time. But they could easily last longer than that.
For instance, the computer has to be able to take a certain amount of radiation damage, but chances are an off the shelf radiation hardened CPU can take Mars level radiation for 10 years (just pulling a number out of the air). Same with wheels; they were custom built, but how do you tell how fast a wheel hub will wear out on Mars? Just aim for it to turn X number of times in the anticipated environment. As it turns out, we've had 1 wheel motor failure out of 20 (6 driving 4 steering on each rover) in 2.5 years.
CSS is great, if you understand how to do styles in MS Word (oh, OK then, or your favourite OS equivalent), then you can understand how to do CSS, and make your site look better, load faster, and be easier to maintain.
As for HTML 4.0/XHTML 1.0/XHTML 1.1, it's probably worth it to validate, but if some entity isn't in the DTD, who cares? If you drop in a <br> or <img> instead of <br/> or <img/>, who cares? It might not future proof your page, but it's highly unlikely in 50 years "HTML readers" won't be able to render a page that renders now. I believe that people who harp on about HTML standards compliance are just being show-offs, anyone who can code better than 95% of the population can do it (if you want to), which is anyone who codes, and if you can't you're just one of these people's long suffering class-mates. Also, a lot of the site spruiking Standards Compliance say that their effect works in Mozilla and not in IE because Mozilla is standards compliant, but sometimes it's hard to tell if their not finding quirks in Mozilla's interpretation of the standards.
As for layout not using tables, tables allow you to do reasonably complicated layouts in a consistent way across browsers. The only way to do it with divs is with float (basically abusing the intention of float, but it does work) or absolute positioning, where you can't create liquid layouts (100% screen width) without resorting to JavaScript. Not good enough, screen readers and mobile devices can deal with tables. That said, you can put your navigation at the bottom of the code but at the top of the rendered page with absolute positioning, which can aid in Search Engine Optimization.
That's the stupidest piece of anti-IE-standards-compliant rhetoric I've ever read. If you can't write a web page to render on IE then just draw pictures in Photoshop and pass them around on disks fool.
I see what you're saying. You can turn off PHP execution with.htaccess (either a PHP directive or ), and I think it works with all versions of PHP, Apache only though. The other thing to do (and the normal thing) is to scan extentensions of incoming files, and have a black list (PHP should be at the top of this list), or a white list if you only want a certain type of file (like images) in there. A third way is to store the uploaded files in a place inaccessible by the web.
I doubt Perl scripts would store their uploads in the cgi dir anyway, so my first point still holds.
Probably, but while people are still in love with it we should get a stream of good data handling tools. Thanks for being the guy who said the emperor has no clothes.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get stereo vision of the skies using the LBT, but you can increase the resolution using interferometry.
FFS, I read this story on Firehose, downloaded the crack (for testing purposes only of course), and then realise it was from 1 year 1 day ago, not 1 day ago, so I (and probably 100 others) tagged it oldnews. How did this make the front page? Surely this crack is broken.
In the Alexa top 100, Yahoo! only has two domains, .com and .co.jp. Google has 10 domains in only the top 50, from .com to .co.in. I'm not counting sister sites like Flickr or Orkut here, just the search front pages in the various localizations.
If you total Yahoo!'s top 100 (just the two) you get 29.41% reach (3 month average), but Google's domains total to 44.42%, and that's only the top 50. So in reality, Google's search front end has 50% greater reach than Yahoo!'s search front.
So, amiright?!?
Yep, the plane was actually punctured and he was hit, you can see the hole on the RHS of the aircraft behind the wing, just under windows.
Anyway, his recollection indicates that the plane was punctured before it touched the ground. If that were the case, his "hole" would probably be the point of failure.
I think it is more likely that the puncture happened after the plane hit the ground, caused by debris from the right landing gear ripping away. It would be like this--plane touches down on grass (he thinks they're still smooth in the air); wheels dig in rip off, and punctures hull in quick succession (he has been hit); the plane starts scraping along the hull and engines (he feels the plane "hit the ground hard").
So it's probably just a slightly misleading passenger recollection, but something to think about while we're guessing about the control systems.
... please.
Excellent point, give the browser an <object> tag, with width and height and a link, and if the link is HTML an <iframe> is created, or for an SWF the flash plugin is called. I don't know if all custom parameters can be accomodated, but I guess it's reasonable.
Browser makers will seemlessly fix coding errors rather than display an error message first because it's better for the end users.
Browser makers serve their users, not standards people. It's in their best interest just to correct and display the code, and it's pretty easy. <p>'s can't be nested, so if you encounter a <p> before a closing </p>, just create the closing paragraph tag. Incorrectly nested tags (like <b><i></b></i>), just switch them around, no problem.
Sounds like JavaScript needs namespaces. About a year ago, in every PHP discussion here, people complained that PHP needed to support namespaces. At first I protested, then I decided to ask what namespaces were (I had a vague idea) and why they were useful, and var name clashes were the main reason.
Anyway, prefixes for each module/portlet, and minimal use of global objects can do the trick. Web code is like flight software anyway, you just want it to go fast and be reliable, hence the popularity of PHP and its massive library of functions (procedural-programming friendly) coupled with MySQL for it's speed and scaleability. <Insert similar reference to Perl/Python here even though I don't know or care for either>
Your cell phone has a small lens (low light) and small CCD (susceptible to noise), and must take the shot in milliseconds, so it will be noisy for the same reasons.
Yeah, I think people want you to show it launching an application, maybe Firefox because it's well known and will show your level of network connectivity, plus demonstrate peripherals. All we had was monitor and mouse, maybe keyboard, sound if it works. Try to show 3D performance and video playback too.
I see you've modded PHP-Nuke before!
As for register_globals, I don't feel it is a problem, if you allow variables to be injected into your code from outside then you haven't programmed properly. I always initalize them first, at the very least to NULL, to make it a kind of variable declaration. I never write:
I would always initialize $a at the if ($a) level before the if ($something) block. That said, it's good practice to use $_GET[], $_POST[], etc.And safe mode? Isn't this just a unix permissions precaution, usually used by restrictive (free) PHP webhosts? I never even look at it.
People like using the HTML the way they do. Use newsgroups if it suits you better. Simple as that.
... have a beowolf all on the one Mac!
Touché, well said.
... which makes it totally useless to me.
Next.
Do they differ on this one? Only in level of detail.
Oh please, I forgot it because I don't use it because it's of no use to me because IE doesn't support it. Boo hoo.
Can you crawl out from under your rock and tell me whether IE7 supports this? That would be one useful thing from this conversation.
In summary to any readers, regardless of the worthiness of Microsoft and Internet Explorer, you must learn to use a smaller, crippled subset of CSS (and workarounds) if you're going to web design, mainly because of the deficiencies of IE. You can do some pretty fancy Flash-like stuff if you use CSS that's available in Mozilla/Opera/KHTML, but downloading software is not what the internet is about, it's going to an internet cafe and checking out a site with whatever's available.
At first I thought this was just a CSS replacement for <table><tr><td>, but it does truly mean that you can completely change your layout by switching stylesheets, while keeping the "layout power" of tables. Using absolute positioning or floating blocks always seemed a little deficient to me.
I don't know about it being the difference between two words. It's more like they were designed for 90 days, that's how they got their funding (i.e., if they lasted less, there explanations would have been required), it had to be demonstrated that all components/systems could last for that time. But they could easily last longer than that.
For instance, the computer has to be able to take a certain amount of radiation damage, but chances are an off the shelf radiation hardened CPU can take Mars level radiation for 10 years (just pulling a number out of the air). Same with wheels; they were custom built, but how do you tell how fast a wheel hub will wear out on Mars? Just aim for it to turn X number of times in the anticipated environment. As it turns out, we've had 1 wheel motor failure out of 20 (6 driving 4 steering on each rover) in 2.5 years.
Links please!
CSS is great, if you understand how to do styles in MS Word (oh, OK then, or your favourite OS equivalent), then you can understand how to do CSS, and make your site look better, load faster, and be easier to maintain.
As for HTML 4.0/XHTML 1.0/XHTML 1.1, it's probably worth it to validate, but if some entity isn't in the DTD, who cares? If you drop in a <br> or <img> instead of <br /> or <img />, who cares? It might not future proof your page, but it's highly unlikely in 50 years "HTML readers" won't be able to render a page that renders now. I believe that people who harp on about HTML standards compliance are just being show-offs, anyone who can code better than 95% of the population can do it (if you want to), which is anyone who codes, and if you can't you're just one of these people's long suffering class-mates. Also, a lot of the site spruiking Standards Compliance say that their effect works in Mozilla and not in IE because Mozilla is standards compliant, but sometimes it's hard to tell if their not finding quirks in Mozilla's interpretation of the standards.
As for layout not using tables, tables allow you to do reasonably complicated layouts in a consistent way across browsers. The only way to do it with divs is with float (basically abusing the intention of float, but it does work) or absolute positioning, where you can't create liquid layouts (100% screen width) without resorting to JavaScript. Not good enough, screen readers and mobile devices can deal with tables. That said, you can put your navigation at the bottom of the code but at the top of the rendered page with absolute positioning, which can aid in Search Engine Optimization.
That's great, they're such capitalists at BSD!
That's the stupidest piece of anti-IE-standards-compliant rhetoric I've ever read. If you can't write a web page to render on IE then just draw pictures in Photoshop and pass them around on disks fool.
I doubt Perl scripts would store their uploads in the cgi dir anyway, so my first point still holds.
Sorry, but if you put a powerful and insecure script in any language on a server then you've got the same problem.
Probably, but while people are still in love with it we should get a stream of good data handling tools. Thanks for being the guy who said the emperor has no clothes.