I believe there are clauses in the standards that specify how browser agents should handle broken input. That way all browsers will handle the broken stuff the same way.
What is a good way to make mass metadata tag revisions with Winamp? With Winamp, I've only been able to change each song at a time. With iTunes, I can select a bunch of songs and mass edit any of the fields.. I recently switched over to iTunes for this ability, but I'm missing global hotkeys and the slim winamp interface.
I want to be able to change a dozen tags to the same Artist/Album/Genre. Yes, I know I should have kept them organised in the beginning, but I didn't.
I believe there is a hashing algorithm called TigerTree. TigerTree computes a single hash based on 1024 byte blocks. As the file is downloaded, each block can be independantly verified.
So if they try to pollute a network by giving corrupt data for a valid file, all the downloader needs to do is notice that a particular client keeps sending corrupt parts. And of course if they send some real bits nad some fake bits, the downloader will keep the real bits and discard the fake ones.
Don't ask me how it works, but I know that Shareaza makes use of this hash.
From the report:
Cassar warns that, with Firefox's penetration growing as quickly as it is, publishers need to be certain that
their sites are compatible with the upstart browser. "It was looking as though Microsoft Explorer was in
the process of establishing itself as the standard browser, which was great news for site developers.
With Firefox on the rise, they have to grudgingly accept that they don't live in a one browser world."
Would someone who agrees with sibling posts use your geek-fu and dig up Mr. Ken Cassar's contact information so all the pissed off web developers can remind him about these IE bugs?
Yeah, maybe. That'd be great. If they can get funding and spend it to advertise to the uninformed portion of the Interent, we could see an rise in Firefox market share.
While at the same time, geeks can find the free tweakable versions of the software.
Intitial reaction on Slashdot: "They're trying to charge for something we already know and love! Oh noes!!"
Somehow, I don't think this product is targetted towards most geeks. It seems to me that they should be aiming at people who are starting to hear about Firefox. People have heard that Firefox is supposed to solve their security problems and introduce new features to make browsing easy. It's supposed to come with all sorts of cool extentions that you can download and customise your browsing experience.
Most of the cool stuff that geeks do with Firefox is free and easy; we install extensions at a whim, customise the security settings, and tweak about:config to our liking. The problem is, most people find these activties confusing and time consuming.
Extensions: Which one do I choose? How do I know which one has bugs? What do I do if it breaks the browser?
Geeks know that you: a) Try them all! b) Read up on some forums for past experince. c) Backup your settyings and do a quick re-istall!
Well, there you go. People think you need to be a super computer genius to do all of those things.
Perhaps this company could be useful as the AOL of the open source community.
Any idea on what Would happen if we had developed cables sufficiently strong enough for the task and someone flew a plane into it?
Would we get some sort of amusing/morbid scene where the plane simply splits in half? No harm to the cables.
Or would it be boring, where the cable would just break, and stay anchored... in space? (I recall that most of the mass would be in orbit, so the bottom half would actually be pulled outwards by the top half)
Imagine if every human that ever died of simple old age was still around today. I don't think the Earth could support that many humans.
So what would happen? We'd all die?
Well, if nobody did anything and kept reproducing, we'd run out of resources and all those individuals who refused to die would all die as a species.
Now, we're more resourceful than that. One obvious solution would be to slaghter other humans. The logic being: They are taking up the same limited resources that you need to survive. if they are dead, you get more!
As the population reached more sustainable levels, people might get the idea that having less babies would alleviate the problem. BUT, as war and destruction would be the theme of the day, reproduction levels would still have to be kept up as societies struggle to survive the destruction of competing societies.
I'd like to believe that eventually the societies would realize that all the war was being extremely counter productive and we could all just produce more if we all worked to simultaniously lower the birth rate and levels of war. Unfortunately, societies that think like this would likely be destroyed by more agressive ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone know why ABC news uses Flash to display the title of their articles?
Request: A Firefox extension that does this!
I believe there are clauses in the standards that specify how browser agents should handle broken input. That way all browsers will handle the broken stuff the same way.
Longhorn: We've just caught up!
Instead of doing stupid skits commenting about what people are doing, all skits should end with insults being tossed around.
I mean, insulting someone in a foreign language. There's something that's actually useful!
I want to be able to change a dozen tags to the same Artist/Album/Genre. Yes, I know I should have kept them organised in the beginning, but I didn't.
Esreviveu eht nioj!
I don't know how things work in the uk, but I study in canada and exam papers are like GOLD!
They should damn well be proud.
For over a thousand generations..
It's Wikipedia. NPOV edit war.
x/16 = 25/100
x = 400% (Imperial percents)
It's the Music Industry versus the People.
So if they try to pollute a network by giving corrupt data for a valid file, all the downloader needs to do is notice that a particular client keeps sending corrupt parts. And of course if they send some real bits nad some fake bits, the downloader will keep the real bits and discard the fake ones.
Don't ask me how it works, but I know that Shareaza makes use of this hash.
Link I ripped from the Shareaza wiki: Tree Hash EXchange format (THEX)
Would someone who agrees with sibling posts use your geek-fu and dig up Mr. Ken Cassar's contact information so all the pissed off web developers can remind him about these IE bugs?
Wait a minute..
Crap.. That means I probably account for half the female population..
I doubt it.
I love how there is a paragraph specifically to mention staff.
While at the same time, geeks can find the free tweakable versions of the software.
Ah MTV, how the captialist market really works. *Sniffle*
Somehow, I don't think this product is targetted towards most geeks. It seems to me that they should be aiming at people who are starting to hear about Firefox. People have heard that Firefox is supposed to solve their security problems and introduce new features to make browsing easy. It's supposed to come with all sorts of cool extentions that you can download and customise your browsing experience.
Most of the cool stuff that geeks do with Firefox is free and easy; we install extensions at a whim, customise the security settings, and tweak about:config to our liking. The problem is, most people find these activties confusing and time consuming.
Extensions: Which one do I choose? How do I know which one has bugs? What do I do if it breaks the browser?
Geeks know that you: a) Try them all! b) Read up on some forums for past experince. c) Backup your settyings and do a quick re-istall!
Well, there you go. People think you need to be a super computer genius to do all of those things.
Perhaps this company could be useful as the AOL of the open source community.
Here, I have a comfy couch for you to lie down on. Lets talk. =P
BTW, I haven't checked the book. If they are naked, you have my apologies.
Would we get some sort of amusing/morbid scene where the plane simply splits in half? No harm to the cables.
Or would it be boring, where the cable would just break, and stay anchored... in space? (I recall that most of the mass would be in orbit, so the bottom half would actually be pulled outwards by the top half)
Well, if nobody did anything and kept reproducing, we'd run out of resources and all those individuals who refused to die would all die as a species.
Now, we're more resourceful than that. One obvious solution would be to slaghter other humans. The logic being: They are taking up the same limited resources that you need to survive. if they are dead, you get more!
As the population reached more sustainable levels, people might get the idea that having less babies would alleviate the problem. BUT, as war and destruction would be the theme of the day, reproduction levels would still have to be kept up as societies struggle to survive the destruction of competing societies.
I'd like to believe that eventually the societies would realize that all the war was being extremely counter productive and we could all just produce more if we all worked to simultaniously lower the birth rate and levels of war. Unfortunately, societies that think like this would likely be destroyed by more agressive ones.