Simply put, software will be looking at your html in order to parse it and render a page.
A parser written to very strictly interpret xml or xhtml can be smaller and faster. These two attributes allow it to function in a limited environment like a cellphone, pda, tv set-top box, or embedded devices. A lenient parser, like used in current browsers, tends to be slower and have higher memory requirements.
Lower costs and shorter development time: If you only have to worry about very strict standards compliant pages, many off the shelf very well tested parsers are available (apache has some good ones for example). This *could* result in better quality products.
"standards that Ajax fails at meeting are USABILITY standards"
A good argument but, I feel I should point out that the majority of the web sites out there fail to meet usability standards with or without AJAX. OTOH, its better that people go crazy with their ideas.
Things that are truly usable (not just those deemed so by the so called advocates) will float to the top, the rest will die off. With the thousands of people developing things I think we will see some good ideas arise. Then everybody else will rip off those ideas and improve and bastardize them. ahh... welcome to the wild wild web...
"Ajax works with standards, not against them" Sorry to be pedantic but, actually, AJAX is "composed of" existing standards. AJAX is just a label put on a set of ways of using various standards together. It might be even be a little more correct to call AJAX a design pattern. But, I'd start some kind of holy war if I said that.
If the latest articles I've read on AJAX are to believed, I'd say its really composed of venture capital pixie dust. Sprinkle a little on to bring in the bucks.
"I want to see CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER" Wasn't that the reason for invading Iraq.
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." - President Bush
"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," - Vice President Cheney
What I am wondering is if we end up in a situation where we really are in danger, will anyone believe it? will I?
As to the exclussions, well, true. The exclussions you mention are pretty clear in the law. However, you could probably successfully fight the exclussions with the equal rights ammendment. Constitutional ammendments tend to hold more weight than laws passed by Congress. Also, the law doesn't say that women and older men can't own guns. It just excludes them from being in a position to have the "right" to one.
OTOH, Since its up to Congress to define who constitutes the militia, they could just change the law to exclude anyone who is not an active member of the military.
"it doesn't present a clear-cut answer to the dispute about universal access to guns" true, thus all the heated debates The 2nd ammendment say the right is neccessary to maintain the militia, it simply says "the right", not the "right of members of the militia". Some will construe "the right" to mean a "universal" right, others see the 2nd ammendment as limited to members of the military. The 2nd ammendment reserves the right to ensure we have a militia however, it doesn't say who they are. It also leaves undefined who can "own" an arm. Bearing and owning are not the same thing. Currently have a strange situation as a result of not defining "arms" well. One could easily call both a sling-shot and a nuclear bomb, arms (and be well understood). However, I expect the govt would give you more grief for one.
People tend to fill the gaps with the things that meet their own view points.
You already are paying the bandwidth costs of tracking.
If tracking is done via big $%& query strings, your pages are bigger. If its done (more commonly) by redirects, you pay it even more.
If you have the option to turn it off, you might actually save some bandwidth.
Also, consider there are better uses than simple advertising. Your favorite sights, by knows what you click on and look at, can offer you more of what you want. You can be presented with more relevant information.
This is already happening. Most comercial sites ALREADY track all of the link clicks on their sites. The majority of them use 302 redirects so, you can't turn them off.
The only thing use of this attribute would do is make transparent what has ALREADY been happening for years.
When I worked at a media company, we had a cluster of servers dedicated to link tracking. All links on the site would send you here, and it would send you a 302 to your destination. Try disabling redirects, and you will see the web stop working.
So you are either only surfing websites made by 6 year olds or sites that want to send tracking information to sites run by 6 year old.
(As many other posts have already stated) Most commercial sites you visit are already doing a variation of this. They either contian tracking information as query string parameters, or in the URL and redirect (302) you to your final page. In the case of a redirect, your browser sends two http requests before getting you to your destination. In the current state of affairs, you have to wait for this processing to happen before getting to your final destination. Adding the attribute will allow it to happen asynchronously and get you to your final destination quicker.
Other differences of using this vs. the current state of affairs: -You can turn it off -You can know that a link has tracking
Link tracking is happening now, and has been happening for a long time. What's wrong with making the process transparent and provinding a better user experience in the process?
As for security, this is a privacy issue, not a security issue. Currently you have no control of the privacy of your link clicking. This could actually give you some control, if used. Microsoft should implement it as well.
If 5% of users are Mac, then how many people are looking for malware on the mac? How many people are looking for windows malware? A few hundred, maybe? They don't find all of the malware that's around for windows. They mostly find the malware thats poorly written and consumes lots of bandwidth. Well written malware goes around for a long time undetected. If there are only a few hundred people looking for virii/malware/trojans on windows, then there is probably only a handful looking for these on Macs. If there aren't many people looking for malware on Mac then there won't be much found.
I'd say only fanboy's say Linux is secure. Most Linux users, myself included, wouldn't. I run my updater every week. I'd say about 90%+ of the updates are security related. Is my system more secure than windows? probably Do I think my sytem *is* secure? no
You think a Mac user would have the skills for a network attack?;-) If more than one mouse button is too confusing, how are they going to launch a network attack?
"in other words, any major OS made by any company other than Microsoft." True, any OS connected to a network is going to be suseptible. The point in the article wasn't about the Mac OS, it was about the user.
I think the majority of Linux users are well aware of security issues. Every week when I update my packages, at least 90% of updates are security related. I am regularly reminded my system is not immune. (the majority of) Linux user say they are more secure than windows but, they don't say they are immune to attack. The point the author was making is that the majority of Mac users think they are safe.
A problem for this company is they set a precedent by licensing the results previously. By their paying of royalties, they were accepting that MLB owned this info. Now they can't get a license, they are taking it to court. Had they never paid a license fee in the past, their case might be stronger. OTOH, if the newspaper reports the results of a game, does this mean they need to pay a license?
Since MLB has not sued newspapers for printing results of games or in game statistics, does this mean they have set a precedent that the information is public? The courts have generally frowned upon selective exercise of ownership. Trademark laws are great examples of this.
My point is this tactic leads to knowingly leaving dangerous people on the streets. Albeit in the hopes of finding somebody more dangerous. However, the "more dangerous" ones aren't on our streets.
Drug dealers and traffickers shoot people and blow up buildings while being "monitored". There may not be a "domestic" demand for blowing up buildings but, obviously there is a (well funded) demand for it (or this conversation wouldn't be happening). What comfort is there is knowing that we tapped the phone of someone before they blew something up because it would help catch someone else.
To be honest, I think this is all BS. Since the Oklahoma explosion, it has become no harder to rent a U-Haul or buy fertilizer. You can still walk into the average Walmart and buy bomb making materials, with a bulk discount. This is the country that invented and perfected guerilla warfare. Every military comander knows that there is no effective way to defend against it. When I was a combat engineer, we were often tasked with the role of OPFOR, playing guerilla. We never lost.
The only thing preventing more bombings is either lack of desire or stupidity. Anybody with the desire and half a brain could walk across the border with a thousand dollars in their pocket and destroy any building in this country.
"I'm not sure there's a distinction in practice as much in theory for leaders vs. representatives"
YOU are in charge of your REPRESENTATIVES. Your LEADER in in charge of YOU.
I'd say the distinction is huge. A representative should represent. A leader does not have to take into account the concerns/opions of those he/she leads.
"Those who are elected to represent will be those that are already leaders" Really? Who/What did Kerry/Dole/Clinton/Martinez/etc.. lead before becoming senator? Ans. nothing
"Even in theory, the idea is that those elected to represent are those who can best convey the electorate's concerns/ideals/etc, which means that they are leaders of some form." No, to "convey the electorate's concerns/ideals/etc" is to represent the electorate, not lead them.
For the armed forces, the president's power is limited as well. From Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
Besides the declative differences in these terms, there is a psychological one. People are much more accepting of a "leader" who does things they disagree with than a representative who does. A lame analogy: If you give proxy votes for your shares of stock and a board member does something you disagree with, you will punish them. If your boss does something you disagree with, you'll probably do very little.
"as long as they are using it for national security"
The question is, how do you maintain that it is only used for this purpose? This is one of the reasons for the limitations of power in the constitution.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;...
Slashdot Mirror
"the client-server paradigm" is the future!
:)
I knew that if I held onto that VT100, it would come back in style.
Long live the mainframe
Simply put, software will be looking at your html in order to parse it and render a page.
A parser written to very strictly interpret xml or xhtml can be smaller and faster. These two attributes allow it to function in a limited environment like a cellphone, pda, tv set-top box, or embedded devices.
A lenient parser, like used in current browsers, tends to be slower and have higher memory requirements.
Lower costs and shorter development time: If you only have to worry about very strict standards compliant pages, many off the shelf very well tested parsers are available (apache has some good ones for example). This *could* result in better quality products.
"standards that Ajax fails at meeting are USABILITY standards"
A good argument but, I feel I should point out that the majority of the web sites out there fail to meet usability standards with or without AJAX.
OTOH, its better that people go crazy with their ideas.
Things that are truly usable (not just those deemed so by the so called advocates) will float to the top, the rest will die off. With the thousands of people developing things I think we will see some good ideas arise. Then everybody else will rip off those ideas and improve and bastardize them. ahh... welcome to the wild wild web...
"Ajax works with standards, not against them"
Sorry to be pedantic but,
actually, AJAX is "composed of" existing standards. AJAX is just a label put on a set of ways of using various standards together.
It might be even be a little more correct to call AJAX a design pattern. But, I'd start some kind of holy war if I said that.
If the latest articles I've read on AJAX are to believed, I'd say its really composed of venture capital pixie dust. Sprinkle a little on to bring in the bucks.
"Why don't laptop manufacturers do this?"
Probably because a "faster" CPU generates a higher price. People tend to pay more for higher MHz, regardless of actual performance.
"I want to see CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER"
Wasn't that the reason for invading Iraq.
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." - President Bush
"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," - Vice President Cheney
What I am wondering is if we end up in a situation where we really are in danger, will anyone believe it? will I?
hypothetical? its the law of the land.
As to the exclussions, well, true. The exclussions you mention are pretty clear in the law.
However, you could probably successfully fight the exclussions with the equal rights ammendment. Constitutional ammendments tend to hold more weight than laws passed by Congress. Also, the law doesn't say that women and older men can't own guns. It just excludes them from being in a position to have the "right" to one.
OTOH, Since its up to Congress to define who constitutes the militia, they could just change the law to exclude anyone who is not an active member of the military.
"it doesn't present a clear-cut answer to the dispute about universal access to guns"
true, thus all the heated debates
The 2nd ammendment say the right is neccessary to maintain the militia, it simply says "the right", not the "right of members of the militia". Some will construe "the right" to mean a "universal" right, others see the 2nd ammendment as limited to members of the military. The 2nd ammendment reserves the right to ensure we have a militia however, it doesn't say who they are. It also leaves undefined who can "own" an arm. Bearing and owning are not the same thing.
Currently have a strange situation as a result of not defining "arms" well. One could easily call both a sling-shot and a nuclear bomb, arms (and be well understood). However, I expect the govt would give you more grief for one.
People tend to fill the gaps with the things that meet their own view points.
You already are paying the bandwidth costs of tracking.
If tracking is done via big $%& query strings, your pages are bigger. If its done (more commonly) by redirects, you pay it even more.
If you have the option to turn it off, you might actually save some bandwidth.
Also, consider there are better uses than simple advertising. Your favorite sights, by knows what you click on and look at, can offer you more of what you want. You can be presented with more relevant information.
There is no ping tag.
FTA, it is an attribute to the anchor "a" tag. Globally removing attribute values is trivially easy to do in javascript.
Curiously, I don't see anyone trying to figure out how to defeat the redirect link tracking that happens today in every browser.
This is already happening. Most comercial sites ALREADY track all of the link clicks on their sites. The majority of them use 302 redirects so, you can't turn them off.
k ing2 +service
The only thing use of this attribute would do is make transparent what has ALREADY been happening for years.
When I worked at a media company, we had a cluster of servers dedicated to link tracking. All links on the site would send you here, and it would send you a 302 to your destination. Try disabling redirects, and you will see the web stop working.
Whats wrong with the idea of not hiding the tracking that is already happening?
As for stats, people want to know is you clicked on a linked image instead of linked text. They want to know what colors get clicked on more.
Did I mention many, many sites already do this?
the technology to do is is pervasive:
Perl CGI
http://www.google.com/search?q=perl+cgi+link+trac
PHP
http://www.google.com/search?q=php+link+tracking
All kinds of stuff
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22link+tracking%2
I'd say implementing something in a draft by the WHATWG is a far cry from making up their "own" standard.
n g
One of the goals of the WHATWG is to refine proposals through feedback and submit them to the W3C.
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#pi
So you are either only surfing websites made by 6 year olds or sites that want to send tracking information to sites run by 6 year old.
(As many other posts have already stated) Most commercial sites you visit are already doing a variation of this. They either contian tracking information as query string parameters, or in the URL and redirect (302) you to your final page. In the case of a redirect, your browser sends two http requests before getting you to your destination.
In the current state of affairs, you have to wait for this processing to happen before getting to your final destination. Adding the attribute will allow it to happen asynchronously and get you to your final destination quicker.
Other differences of using this vs. the current state of affairs:
-You can turn it off
-You can know that a link has tracking
Link tracking is happening now, and has been happening for a long time.
What's wrong with making the process transparent and provinding a better user experience in the process?
As for security, this is a privacy issue, not a security issue. Currently you have no control of the privacy of your link clicking. This could actually give you some control, if used.
Microsoft should implement it as well.
Modded troll for an obvious joke. Sheesh, so sensitive these folks.
If 5% of users are Mac, then how many people are looking for malware on the mac?
How many people are looking for windows malware? A few hundred, maybe? They don't find all of the malware that's around for windows. They mostly find the malware thats poorly written and consumes lots of bandwidth. Well written malware goes around for a long time undetected. If there are only a few hundred people looking for virii/malware/trojans on windows, then there is probably only a handful looking for these on Macs.
If there aren't many people looking for malware on Mac then there won't be much found.
I'd say only fanboy's say Linux is secure. Most Linux users, myself included, wouldn't.
I run my updater every week. I'd say about 90%+ of the updates are security related.
Is my system more secure than windows? probably
Do I think my sytem *is* secure? no
You think a Mac user would have the skills for a network attack? ;-)
If more than one mouse button is too confusing, how are they going to launch a network attack?
"in other words, any major OS made by any company other than Microsoft."
True, any OS connected to a network is going to be suseptible. The point in the article wasn't about the Mac OS, it was about the user.
I think the majority of Linux users are well aware of security issues. Every week when I update my packages, at least 90% of updates are security related. I am regularly reminded my system is not immune.
(the majority of) Linux user say they are more secure than windows but, they don't say they are immune to attack. The point the author was making is that the majority of Mac users think they are safe.
He was signling out the users, not the OS.
A problem for this company is they set a precedent by licensing the results previously. By their paying of royalties, they were accepting that MLB owned this info. Now they can't get a license, they are taking it to court. Had they never paid a license fee in the past, their case might be stronger.
OTOH, if the newspaper reports the results of a game, does this mean they need to pay a license?
Since MLB has not sued newspapers for printing results of games or in game statistics, does this mean they have set a precedent that the information is public?
The courts have generally frowned upon selective exercise of ownership. Trademark laws are great examples of this.
"Please show me a normal definition of leader where it includes the right of command."
ok
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leader
2. One who is in charge or in command of others.
My point is this tactic leads to knowingly leaving dangerous people on the streets. Albeit in the hopes of finding somebody more dangerous. However, the "more dangerous" ones aren't on our streets.
Drug dealers and traffickers shoot people and blow up buildings while being "monitored". There may not be a "domestic" demand for blowing up buildings but, obviously there is a (well funded) demand for it (or this conversation wouldn't be happening).
What comfort is there is knowing that we tapped the phone of someone before they blew something up because it would help catch someone else.
To be honest, I think this is all BS. Since the Oklahoma explosion, it has become no harder to rent a U-Haul or buy fertilizer. You can still walk into the average Walmart and buy bomb making materials, with a bulk discount.
This is the country that invented and perfected guerilla warfare. Every military comander knows that there is no effective way to defend against it. When I was a combat engineer, we were often tasked with the role of OPFOR, playing guerilla. We never lost.
The only thing preventing more bombings is either lack of desire or stupidity. Anybody with the desire and half a brain could walk across the border with a thousand dollars in their pocket and destroy any building in this country.
"I'm not sure there's a distinction in practice as much in theory for leaders vs. representatives"
YOU are in charge of your REPRESENTATIVES.
Your LEADER in in charge of YOU.
I'd say the distinction is huge. A representative should represent. A leader does not have to take into account the concerns/opions of those he/she leads.
"Those who are elected to represent will be those that are already leaders"
Really? Who/What did Kerry/Dole/Clinton/Martinez/etc.. lead before becoming senator? Ans. nothing
"Even in theory, the idea is that those elected to represent are those who can best convey the electorate's concerns/ideals/etc, which means that they are leaders of some form."
No, to "convey the electorate's concerns/ideals/etc" is to represent the electorate, not lead them.
For the armed forces, the president's power is limited as well. From Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
Besides the declative differences in these terms, there is a psychological one.
People are much more accepting of a "leader" who does things they disagree with than a representative who does.
A lame analogy:
If you give proxy votes for your shares of stock and a board member does something you disagree with, you will punish them.
If your boss does something you disagree with, you'll probably do very little.
"as long as they are using it for national security"
The question is, how do you maintain that it is only used for this purpose?
This is one of the reasons for the limitations of power in the constitution.
So, we are conducting the "war on terror" using the same time proven tactics as the "war on drugs".
Section 8 - Powers of Congress ... ...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Try
n aments&d2=tco06&d3=nsa
http://www.nsa.gov/careers/index.cfm
http://www.google.com/search?q=nsa+jobs
https://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=tour