Why does this software create a fake TLD (.free) instead of creating a freenet:// protocol? If you're going to distribute links that only a few people can use, you might as well distribute them in a way that browsers can give the correct error message ("protocol not supported" instead of "host not found").
"For those not in the know, it's totally invisible." That isn't really true. It only takes a slight movement with the right mouse button held down to activate a gesture in Opera. If you don't know that you have to be very careful when popping up a contextual menu it's very easy to unintentionally make a gesture.
That happened to me last time I played with Opera, too.
4. If it's signed properly by someone on your keyring, it'll say "md5 gpg OK". If not signed at all, it'll just say "md5 OK". If signed, but not by someone you know, or if it's been tampered with, it'll say "md5 GPG NOT OK".
On the other hand, (no pun intended) it's yet another friggin' standard we have to code web pages for. We already have Netscape vs. Microsoft, Computer vs. PDA/Portable, and options like XML and Javascript. Now we have something else? Arrgh!
This will make life easier for web developers (or at least for web developers who won't want to bother writing good, structural HTML). To make a site work well with screen-reading software, you have to do things like adding ALT tags for images, labeling column headers in tables, and avoiding using color as the only thing distinguishing two items on the page. This new software works directly from the screen representation of your page, so as long as your page is usable on a non-color monitor, it should work for people using this new mouse in lightness-darkness mode.
I wouldn't throw out the ALT tags and the structural syntax quite yet, though. Many of the same things you might have done to make your site readable through text-to-speech software also makes the site more readable through PDA browsers, text browsers (lynx/links), text-to-braille software, and graphical browsers where the user has disabled stylesheets. For example, PDA browsers may support scrolling the body of a table while leaving the headers visible in order to make it easier to read a table on a small screen. If you neglect to tell the browser that the first row of cells are actually headers, that feature might not work. ALT tags for images are good for giving search engines a chance to figure out image-heavy pages.
"War" is my second-favorite entry from last year's 5k. I showed it to a lot of my friends when I found out about the contest (shortly after the results came out last year). "Colors" is my favorite -- I actully use it about once a week.
Intel has a department devoted to finding ways to use more CPU time.
Cisco does something similar. They have a team whose sole purpose is to create applications that use lots of bandwidth in order to increase demand for bandwidth. Any successful application created by this team is spun off as a separate company. I doubt that they set up their software to waste a lot bandwidth, although they might not spend as much time on optimization as other companies.
What do you do if/when Loki, or even the original game producer, comes out with a Linux version after you've bought the Windows version? Do you pirate it, cheating Loki out of money or giving the company the impression that the Linux version isn't selling, or do you purchase it a second time?
And unlike other generations' copied mediums, we can trust the intermediary -- the cold, heartless eye of the scanner and OCR soft -- not to misspell anything or make up shit.
Which OCR software do you use? The one I tried wasn't incredibly accurate. (That was a few years ago, though.)
The "Party" in 1984 devoted itself to doing exactly what the Clinton regime did: They went through all historical records, altering, falsifying, modifying, deleting.
Did I miss something? What historical records was Clinton accused of altering?
with "for(int i..." in standard C++, i's scope is for the duration of the loop. in MSVC, you've just declared a new variable, so putting two for loops in a row with the same variable initialization will cause compiler errors which you *shouldn't be seeing*.
IIRC g++ (the gnu c++ compiler) does something similar when the Wshadow switch is enabled.
So if a story we've been tracking ends in a reasonable way, the slashdot editors shouldn't post the resolution? And we shouldn't discuss how wide-reaching that resolution was, or whether it set a reasonable precedent?
Netscape: One arbitrary code execution bug, one hard drive access bug. MSIE: At LEAST two arbitrary code execution bugs (that i can remember), and at least two hard drive access bugs (that i can remember).
If two arbitrary-code holes are present in the same version of some software, how much worse is that than having a single hole?
Done this way, it doesn't matter if the browser code has security holes because the browser code is not trusted. The mandatory security protections of the OS prevent it from doing anything. This is the right way to do it, and the only one that will work.
That works if you only use the web for fun and/or reference, but if you type your credit card number into any website, you should hope that other sites aren't able to read your cookie file or hijack your browser to send everything you type into other sites to the malicious site. I guess you could tell the user to restart their browser after visiting any questionable site and throw out the cookies file between each session, but I doubt it would be worth the effort and loss of functionality.
By the way, preventing the browser from mucking with your files wouldn't solve privacy problems such as bug 57351 (present in both IE and Mozilla).
can you ever trust an automated software update again, even a "secure" one
Why limit the question to only cover automated updates? What about when you see a security bulletin or a new-version announcement and go to download the new version manually?
Regarding nomenclature, voluntary and trust taxes have existed for a long time. The sales and use tax charged by retailers is a trust tax, because consumers and the state are trusting retailers to report and pay the required tax in a timely manner.
Do consumers know they're supposed to pay those taxes, and do they know how? Is it easy enough that they won't give up saying "I'm not going to spend four hours plus accountant fees trying to get $5 to the state"?
Slashdot Mirror
Why does this software create a fake TLD (.free) instead of creating a freenet:// protocol? If you're going to distribute links that only a few people can use, you might as well distribute them in a way that browsers can give the correct error message ("protocol not supported" instead of "host not found").
"For those not in the know, it's totally invisible." That isn't really true. It only takes a slight movement with the right mouse button held down to activate a gesture in Opera. If you don't know that you have to be very careful when popping up a contextual menu it's very easy to unintentionally make a gesture.
That happened to me last time I played with Opera, too.
4. If it's signed properly by someone on your keyring, it'll say "md5 gpg OK". If not signed at all, it'll just say "md5 OK". If signed, but not by someone you know, or if it's been tampered with, it'll say "md5 GPG NOT OK".
That's a strange bug.
On the other hand, (no pun intended) it's yet another friggin' standard we have to code web pages for. We already have Netscape vs. Microsoft, Computer vs. PDA/Portable, and options like XML and Javascript. Now we have something else? Arrgh!
This will make life easier for web developers (or at least for web developers who won't want to bother writing good, structural HTML). To make a site work well with screen-reading software, you have to do things like adding ALT tags for images, labeling column headers in tables, and avoiding using color as the only thing distinguishing two items on the page. This new software works directly from the screen representation of your page, so as long as your page is usable on a non-color monitor, it should work for people using this new mouse in lightness-darkness mode.
I wouldn't throw out the ALT tags and the structural syntax quite yet, though. Many of the same things you might have done to make your site readable through text-to-speech software also makes the site more readable through PDA browsers, text browsers (lynx/links), text-to-braille software, and graphical browsers where the user has disabled stylesheets. For example, PDA browsers may support scrolling the body of a table while leaving the headers visible in order to make it easier to read a table on a small screen. If you neglect to tell the browser that the first row of cells are actually headers, that feature might not work. ALT tags for images are good for giving search engines a chance to figure out image-heavy pages.
Does it alert the operating system that it's slowing down, so that the operating system can tell me that it's slowed down?
--
--
Why would booting from a blank floppy wipe your hard drive partition table? That sounds like a really bad bug.
Intel has a department devoted to finding ways to use more CPU time.
Cisco does something similar. They have a team whose sole purpose is to create applications that use lots of bandwidth in order to increase demand for bandwidth. Any successful application created by this team is spun off as a separate company. I doubt that they set up their software to waste a lot bandwidth, although they might not spend as much time on optimization as other companies.
--
Which OCR software do you use? The one I tried wasn't incredibly accurate. (That was a few years ago, though.)
--
Did I miss something? What historical records was Clinton accused of altering?
--
IIRC g++ (the gnu c++ compiler) does something similar when the Wshadow switch is enabled.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Why would their customers have necessarily known that the company was in trouble? I hadn't even heard of northpoint until yesterday.
Netscape: One arbitrary code execution bug, one hard drive access bug. MSIE: At LEAST two arbitrary code execution bugs (that i can remember), and at least two hard drive access bugs (that i can remember).
If two arbitrary-code holes are present in the same version of some software, how much worse is that than having a single hole?
Done this way, it doesn't matter if the browser code has security holes because the browser code is not trusted. The mandatory security protections of the OS prevent it from doing anything. This is the right way to do it, and the only one that will work.
That works if you only use the web for fun and/or reference, but if you type your credit card number into any website, you should hope that other sites aren't able to read your cookie file or hijack your browser to send everything you type into other sites to the malicious site. I guess you could tell the user to restart their browser after visiting any questionable site and throw out the cookies file between each session, but I doubt it would be worth the effort and loss of functionality.
By the way, preventing the browser from mucking with your files wouldn't solve privacy problems such as bug 57351 (present in both IE and Mozilla).
can you ever trust an automated software update again, even a "secure" one
Why limit the question to only cover automated updates? What about when you see a security bulletin or a new-version announcement and go to download the new version manually?
A while ago I checked a checkbox labelled "Always trust content from Microsoft Corporation". Is it possible to undo that?
Regarding nomenclature, voluntary and trust taxes have existed for a long time. The sales and use tax charged by retailers is a trust tax, because consumers and the state are trusting retailers to report and pay the required tax in a timely manner.
Do consumers know they're supposed to pay those taxes, and do they know how? Is it easy enough that they won't give up saying "I'm not going to spend four hours plus accountant fees trying to get $5 to the state"?