You answered your own question. The same markup should display the same way every time, unless the page includes timing-dependent scripts. Assuming Slashdot sends the same markup eevery time, it's a browser bug.
Or you could rewrite the code to modify the hrefs instead of submitting the form in a hackish manner. That would make the code less than half the size (even when gzipped), make it work even with Netscape 4, and make it do the right thing when you shift+click a link to open it in a new window.
So it's ok for Microsoft to leave their operating system insecure, as long as they protect users against viruses? What about other types of malicious code?
The primary defense mechanism must be the operating system itself. Anti-virus software (and personal firewall software) is at best a secondary defense mechanism because it only tries to protect you against a specific type of malicious code. Note that I said "specific type of malicious code", not "specific type of security hole".
When the change occurred do you think that the seat belt company should have sued the car makers?
No, because no car maker was a monopoly.
I think that anti-virus is so core to the security of Windows that it should be included.
IMO, anti-virus software (software that detects known viruses or detects unknown viruses based only on heuristics) is a bad workaround for insecurity, not a security measure.
Slashdot Mirror
You answered your own question. The same markup should display the same way every time, unless the page includes timing-dependent scripts. Assuming Slashdot sends the same markup eevery time, it's a browser bug.
And they could cut off some rows of white pixels.
Google's cache of Google shows the new look for me, but you can still see how Google looked a year ago here.
You can't use the bookmarklet to go back to the old look. Google shows you the new look regardless of your cookie.
Btw, the bookmarklet is still here if you want to look at how it worked.
I don't know any browsers that support site-specific user stylesheets.
Or you could rewrite the code to modify the hrefs instead of submitting the form in a hackish manner. That would make the code less than half the size (even when gzipped), make it work even with Netscape 4, and make it do the right thing when you shift+click a link to open it in a new window.
I don't regret a dime we have spent with Google and their services as we have seen it returned to us 100-fold.
If every keyword you've tried has given you a 100-fold return, maybe you should try advertising on less-targeted keywords too.
You should tell your readers about Firefox and Pornzilla. They make porn surfing much more pleasant and efficient.
There were much more interesting stories in the BBC, like the stident who auctioned her virginity on Ebay and went through with the deal.
URL? Why wasn't it considered prostitution?
I thought is was the smothering rover from The Prisoner.
Now all staff machines need to be behind hardware firewalls. ALL machines.
Including the firewall?
Monthly mailing list reminders *are* spam.
The combination of snippets Google displays with each result is sometimes called a "ransom note".
What's broken about the "funny" moderation?
anon. for obvious reasons
You're afraid to admit that you sometimes select a menu item adjacent to the one you're trying to select? Don't worry, everyone does it.
Downloading the index page, then uploading it to the W3C validator throws an error about being unable to determine character encoding.
That's because Slashdot specifies the character encoding in an HTTP header, not in the HTML. When you save a page, you throw away HTTP headers.
Encryption without authentication prevents a weak attacker, who can watch the transaction but not modify it, from seeing your credit card number.
SSL has an authentication-without-encryption mode but no encryption-without-authentication mode? WTF?
It's well illustrated with [many] photographs.
Translation: the site won't survive 5 minutes of slashdotting.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233765
So the sad state of affairs is that solely because of political reasons SVG in Mozilla is completely worthless....
Care to back that up? I always assumed SVG wasn't included by default because it added bloat, not because of "political reasons".
Mozilla Firefox's tagline is "The Browser, Reloaded". (Mozilla stole it from the Matrix sequel, of course.)
So it's ok for Microsoft to leave their operating system insecure, as long as they protect users against viruses? What about other types of malicious code?
The primary defense mechanism must be the operating system itself. Anti-virus software (and personal firewall software) is at best a secondary defense mechanism because it only tries to protect you against a specific type of malicious code. Note that I said "specific type of malicious code", not "specific type of security hole".
When the change occurred do you think that the seat belt company should have sued the car makers?
No, because no car maker was a monopoly.
I think that anti-virus is so core to the security of Windows that it should be included.
IMO, anti-virus software (software that detects known viruses or detects unknown viruses based only on heuristics) is a bad workaround for insecurity, not a security measure.