Web hacking attacks numbered 58 in 2005, up from 16 in 2004 and 9 in 2003, according to the Web Application Security Consortium.
those numbers seem rediculously low, and based on what? the tiny little company i work for, i think i've had *at least* that many failed sql injection attacks in my logs this year.
"Carl Bialik" from the WSJ has had dozens of stories accepted. Who cares? His summaries are usually concise and accurate and the linked articles are informative as well.
I have no problem with him or the WSJ submitting articles to Slashdot
amen. especially since they are honestly attribute. not beatlesbeatles shennanigans here, he says who he is upfront, it's all on the up and up, and the articles are usually of interest.
not to be an MS fan boi here, but just stop and think for a minute. MS has literaly hundreds of versions of their OSes. All the different language versions. There are well documented examples (ctrl-f for "polish") of specific bugs for specific language versions
There's a *lot* of testing that needs done for a windows fix
it's a valid point, certainly, but at least one notable exception pops to mind... hewey long, for all his pocket lining and corruption, did some really important things for that state - building projects like highways and public infrastructure... sure, he made a mint on them, but people did benefit because he *at least* got the stuff built
the diference between rms and pepsi is how overt they are with the description of philosophy
pepsi doesn't take tv adds where a guy in a suit stands in front of a plain background and says "pepsi: it embodies youthfulness"; their hot people playing voleyball conveys the same message, just more effectively
the thing about (please pardon while I use these terms loosely) the "products" that rms is "pitching" is that they don't get 15 second add spots on friends, but, they still need marketing. he still markets this with a philosophy the way pepsi does, but with the difference that he says "$foo and $bar are the philosophy for this stuff"
"We believe the Fair Competition Act was established to provide safeguards for private industry," Grabert said. "Efforts to repeal it do raise concerns."
Even as a free-market kind of guy, the doublespeak here really makes my head spin. In the name of fair competition... we have to eliminate anything that might outcompete with $5.99/minute pay-card-based WiFi providers.
nail.head, meet hammer.
that's pretty much it right there. Meffert seems to be operating on the following assumptions:
1- if private industry isn't priding this service, the government should
2- wifi is important for the rebuilding of the city's economy
3- as for how #2 above should be best implemented, see number one
at the end of the day, anyone who disagrees with this guy is trying to line their own pockets, and telling people who've been pretty roundly screwed over that they should just bend over and grin
this might be the first reasonable statement i've heard from a public official in years
Right. You had Vikings all over the place a millenium ago, while we're pretending to be a grown up country and we're not even 300 years old yet. Not that it's an excuse by any stretch of the imagination, but I wonder if there's any correlation to the way our government behaves and how old (read: young) it really is.
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { // browser supports XMLHttpRequest, so it's // not IE<7 } else if (window.ActiveXObject) { // browser supports activexobjects, so it's an IE flavor }
i'm not a skilled coder at all, but i really enjoy coding with a friend of mine who is very highly skilled. when we've worked on projects together before, we use a navigator/drive method
the less-skilled team member can do the bulk of the typing, which is much more effective for learning than *watching* a more skilled perosn work; the more skilled person can be giving instructions, or working on problems that will come up later in the code
another way to say this is that the more skilled person specs the project out while the less skilled person implements it, and it all happens at about the same time
it's worked for me, but i think the dynamic that already exists between the two parties is a huge part of how well this works
alt="" is used for things like spacer.gif and your rounded corners, for things where there is no useful alternative
to use alt="" as a way to ensure that automated testing kits don't complain, and using it on all your images and whatnot, is just as wrong
the problem in your example is relying solley on automated testing for accessibility. all an automated test can do it tell you the things that are *definately* wrong, leaving lots of stuff that must be expert checked
Re:Oh yeah, I've seen predictions like this before
on
No More Next Big Thing?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I thought the Michelson quote had another sentence: "now, if we can only figure out why these salts fog our photographic plates..." Or was that an ad-lib by my Physics Professor? (Dr. Thomas Eck, CWRU)
assuming gp is right and the year of the michelson quote is in the 1890s, then likely your professor was adlibing
the first photographic image of any kind was made in either the late 1830s or early 40s (cant' remember, but the image itself is preserved at a UT library)... the first "propper" "photographs" were made nearly simultaneously in 1848 (within months of each other) by researchs working independently, J.P.L.M. Daugeurre, and William Henry Fox Talbot (note - lots of initials are needed to invent photography)
by the 1890s, silver-based photography was pretty much not significantly differnt from what we know today (although 35mm file wouldn't be invented until the 1920s)
of course, i could have totally misunderstood you and the gp entirely, and this might not actually be relevent
The outcome will determine whether the Justice Department will be able to use Google search terms in a social science research project that will be used this fall to defend an antipornography law. The Bush administration argues that criminal sanctions in the 1998 law--which has been placed on hold by the courts--are more effective ways to shield children than antiporn filtering software.
Essentially it wants data from search engines to prove how easy it is to stumble over porn on the net. If it can prove this the result might be onerous regulation for many websites.
In court documents the US government said it had tried to generate the same information using the Internet Archive website but did not get the results it wanted.
essentially, the doj wants this data to make a point about child porn online. they are not investigating any violations of any law. this is not an issue where a warant even *could* be issued
rather, they are trying to make a point regarding aspects of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the ACLU has successfully blocked in court. the government wants figures to support it's position in that case, but those figures don't exist, so they're demanding that google *give* them the raw data they need to make the argument they want to make
no kidding. what really trives me nuts is the way that we put so much value on "reaching an agreement" in this culture that people look the other way to "doing increadibly wrong things"
doj asked for a million urls and 50,000 searches... "well," says the judge, "they've reduced that to much smaller numbers, so i'm impressed with their ability compromise, so i'm inclined to give it to them"
well hold the fuck on! discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong. *especially* since it's (a) not for an investigation of anything, and (b) being used to try to justify their own failed attempts at legislation
excuse me, but it's not google's job to do the government's homework for them.
Cocaine (like Heroine) is a Sechdule II controlled substance, meaning it has (i paraphrase) "limmited medical or scientific applications", and as such one obtain a license like you describe
Sechedule I substances (such as pot and lsd) have (paraphrase) "extreme danger of addiction with no medical or scientific uses", and as such licenses may *not* be obtained for these substances (please correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure i'm not)
obviously, some states are trying to use local legislation to get around this classification where the medical uses of pot are concerned, but the federal govermant claims that federal law trumps
Slashdot Mirror
those numbers seem rediculously low, and based on what? the tiny little company i work for, i think i've had *at least* that many failed sql injection attacks in my logs this year.
where the hell are these number coming from?
amen. especially since they are honestly attribute. not beatlesbeatles shennanigans here, he says who he is upfront, it's all on the up and up, and the articles are usually of interest.
what? oh....
not to be an MS fan boi here, but just stop and think for a minute. MS has literaly hundreds of versions of their OSes. All the different language versions. There are well documented examples (ctrl-f for "polish") of specific bugs for specific language versions
There's a *lot* of testing that needs done for a windows fix
forgot the bit above: if (posts_to_slashdot) #define has_girlfriend = 0;
it's a valid point, certainly, but at least one notable exception pops to mind... hewey long, for all his pocket lining and corruption, did some really important things for that state - building projects like highways and public infrastructure... sure, he made a mint on them, but people did benefit because he *at least* got the stuff built
foo = nail.hammer(nail.head);
?
the diference between rms and pepsi is how overt they are with the description of philosophy
pepsi doesn't take tv adds where a guy in a suit stands in front of a plain background and says "pepsi: it embodies youthfulness"; their hot people playing voleyball conveys the same message, just more effectively
the thing about (please pardon while I use these terms loosely) the "products" that rms is "pitching" is that they don't get 15 second add spots on friends, but, they still need marketing. he still markets this with a philosophy the way pepsi does, but with the difference that he says "$foo and $bar are the philosophy for this stuff"
Right. You had Vikings all over the place a millenium ago, while we're pretending to be a grown up country and we're not even 300 years old yet. Not that it's an excuse by any stretch of the imagination, but I wonder if there's any correlation to the way our government behaves and how old (read: young) it really is.
Mr. Savant's household has a higher collective IQ than his town. His town has a greater IQ than his state...
you can do it in javascript:
// browser supports XMLHttpRequest, so it's
// not IE<7
// browser supports activexobjects, so it's an IE flavor
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
}
else if (window.ActiveXObject) {
}
i'm not a skilled coder at all, but i really enjoy coding with a friend of mine who is very highly skilled. when we've worked on projects together before, we use a navigator/drive method
the less-skilled team member can do the bulk of the typing, which is much more effective for learning than *watching* a more skilled perosn work; the more skilled person can be giving instructions, or working on problems that will come up later in the code
another way to say this is that the more skilled person specs the project out while the less skilled person implements it, and it all happens at about the same time
it's worked for me, but i think the dynamic that already exists between the two parties is a huge part of how well this works
Hey, thanks. I was going to ask if the MS jim thatcher was the same as the section 508 authoring jim thatcher. i guess he's not. thanks
you have take into account the time to load/unload the truck
there's no way a truck full of DVDs competes, even if it *does* use spindles
to use alt="" as a way to ensure that automated testing kits don't complain, and using it on all your images and whatnot, is just as wrong
the problem in your example is relying solley on automated testing for accessibility. all an automated test can do it tell you the things that are *definately* wrong, leaving lots of stuff that must be expert checked
assuming gp is right and the year of the michelson quote is in the 1890s, then likely your professor was adlibing
the first photographic image of any kind was made in either the late 1830s or early 40s (cant' remember, but the image itself is preserved at a UT library)... the first "propper" "photographs" were made nearly simultaneously in 1848 (within months of each other) by researchs working independently, J.P.L.M. Daugeurre, and William Henry Fox Talbot (note - lots of initials are needed to invent photography)
by the 1890s, silver-based photography was pretty much not significantly differnt from what we know today (although 35mm file wouldn't be invented until the 1920s)
of course, i could have totally misunderstood you and the gp entirely, and this might not actually be relevent
huh... have you got a link for this?
sorry, sorry....
alright buddy, take your common sense and your accurate reading and go somehwere else, okay! i've got a fantasy to live in here
from teh beeb
essentially, the doj wants this data to make a point about child porn online. they are not investigating any violations of any law. this is not an issue where a warant even *could* be issued
rather, they are trying to make a point regarding aspects of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the ACLU has successfully blocked in court. the government wants figures to support it's position in that case, but those figures don't exist, so they're demanding that google *give* them the raw data they need to make the argument they want to make
doj asked for a million urls and 50,000 searches... "well," says the judge, "they've reduced that to much smaller numbers, so i'm impressed with their ability compromise, so i'm inclined to give it to them"
well hold the fuck on! discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong. *especially* since it's (a) not for an investigation of anything, and (b) being used to try to justify their own failed attempts at legislation
excuse me, but it's not google's job to do the government's homework for them.
Sechedule I substances (such as pot and lsd) have (paraphrase) "extreme danger of addiction with no medical or scientific uses", and as such licenses may *not* be obtained for these substances (please correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure i'm not)
obviously, some states are trying to use local legislation to get around this classification where the medical uses of pot are concerned, but the federal govermant claims that federal law trumps
someone get those poor guys a window! is daylight banned for mission control?
fair enough... try cad.insert-the-letter-a-into-the-next-bit.eu