Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out there
So they're saying that "what is right and wrong" is not the focus of judgement, rather who had the better lawyer?
No, the point highlighted in the above article is that instead of making a case for specific types of fair use that might be applicable, the defendants lawyers tried to argue rather broadly that all downloading was fair use, something that the judge couldn't possibly find in favour of. In essence the judge said that they were open to certain arguments being made, but the defendant never tried to make them and instead opted for a bat-shit crazy defense coupled with irresponsible and outright illegal conduct. It's not hard to see why Tenenbaum wound up getting the judgement that he did.
I would suggest that if a web developer is incapable of making browsers render the same site consistently using CSS then they have a great deal more to learn. The problems with cross browser rendering issues have long since been solved.
It's an interesting idea, but like a lot of CAPTCHA alternatives it would only survive on a small scale.
The reality is it'd be quite trivial for a bot to request the page on which the form is displayed and retrieve the appropriate cookie and then subsequently parse the response to determine which form fields match up with which labels, something which is trivially done in any standards compliant website. At that point all they need to do is post to the server using that cookie and those form fields and they're through.
It's not so much making a parser for this syntax that's the issue, the issue is the ambiguity between functions in namespaces and static classes. See my post for further details.
Not at all, there were some serious ambiguity issues that needed to be resolved.
Take the following code:
----------
# first file
namespace Foo;
function blarg() {
echo "function"; }
# second file
class Foo {
public static function blarg()
{
echo "method";
} }
# third file
Foo::blarg();// what does this output?
-------
The problem here is that calling a static method and calling a function within a namespace share the exact same syntax, so at a glance you can't be sure what will happen.
If we assume that PHP internally does its lookups in these situations as function first, then class, then there's four possible scenario's in this situation.
1. You have both files included at once, PHP gives a fatal error due to the ambiguity.
2. You only have the first file (namespaced function) included, so it outputs "function".
3. You only have the second file (static class) included, so it outputs "method".
4. You have neither files included, but you have defined an autoload method which loads your static class file and outputs "method".
Obviously the ambiguity is a serious issue, so you need to resolve it somehow. Either you make a special syntax for calling functions in namespaces, you change namespaces so they can only be used for classes, or you change the seperator for namespaces to something else.
I read about this sometime ago, so keep in mind that it may no longer be correct. As I understand it, Flashblock works by analyzing the DOM as it's loaded and anytime it sees Flash content it removes it and inserts its own Flashblock placeholder. What this means is that it is possible for Flash to execute before it is removed, however given the delay before the SWF in question is downloaded it's very unlikely that it would begin executing before Flashblock is able to remove it.
Actually the worse part of bootcamp is just having to restart my computer everytime I want to play a game. It seems like a small issue but it does get very annoying after awhile.
Actually JavaScript performance is extremely important to Firefox, as the UI and its countless addons run on JavaScript.
As for rendering performance, I haven't really encountered any websites where I noticed any issues with the speed at which it was being rendered, any slowness has always been with poor performance server side when serving up the requisite HTML, CSS and JavaScript files. That said, if you have any good examples of poor rendering performance I'd be interested to take a look.
I thnk we may have the all-too-common case of developers optimising for specific benchmarks and ending up with code that's extremely fast...at running those benchmarks. Needless to say, SunSpider ran FAR faster with JIT enabled.
You'd be wrong in that assessment. The reason you see the V8 benchmarks showing poor performance for TraceMonkey (Firefox's JIT engine) is due to the tests heavy emphasis on recursion, something for which there is no support for yet (though its expected to arrive in time for Firefox 3.1). Other tests such as SunSpider put far less emphasis on recursion so naturally you're going to see larger benefits.
So, what you really have a case of is simply a product that's not yet complete (hence alpha), but which is still being developed very heavily.
Re:Does Google Want Chrome to Win the Browser Wars
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
* Faster JavaScript: How much do you want to bet that V8 will quickly become part of WebKit.
Just typing in 'email' may not seem like its of much value, if gmail is just a ctrl click away, but think about this command
email this to george
That command would take 'this' (the currently selected text), open up gmail and insert it into the body with the to field set to the best match it can find for george in your address book.
The next step of course is to add support for other email clients as well, both those on the web and those that live on the desktop. It's not there yet, but there's definitely a lot of potential in it.
I don't know about the parent, but I do work professionally as a web developer and code to standards. It doesn't hurt me at all, in fact I've had clients come to me specifically because of the high quality of standards based work that I churn out.
Granted, not all clients are going to be aware of standards and their affect on accessibility and search engine optimization, but it doesn't make standards based web development the veritable money-pit that some make it out to be.
I use NoScript and Flashblock and find it works well. With both you can easily enable javascript if needed (for the likes of digg, etc.) while still stopping horrible flash advertisements showing up.
Simply minifying your scripts by stripping out comments and unneeded whitespace will do almost as good a job compressing the data with eval. Add in gzipping and the difference is negligible, plus there's no additional delay on the client side when that script is decompressed for each and every page that uses it.
While I love Firebug and use it daily for web development, you shouldn't trust its net tab too much. I've found in numerous instances it has grossly understated load times, for example loading a very PHP heavy page which Firebug claimed was loading in 13ms, however serverside performance testing showed that the load time was actually over 1 second. I've actually found Safari's new Web Inspector tools to be much more accurate in this regard so I'd recommend using them for performance testing if you suspect Firebug isn't telling you everything.
Slashdot Mirror
The first one was good, it just had a few glaring flaws that tarnished the experience; namely the most frustratingly boring boss battle ever.
I think it's coming in phases. Isn't the next version of Firefox supposed to isolate plugins in their own processes?
It is indeed, in fact I'm writing this post on the beta version.
Mostly the court said the defense sucked and they WOULD have been receptive to such fair use tactics but the defense didn't help them out there
So they're saying that "what is right and wrong" is not the focus of judgement, rather who had the better lawyer?
No, the point highlighted in the above article is that instead of making a case for specific types of fair use that might be applicable, the defendants lawyers tried to argue rather broadly that all downloading was fair use, something that the judge couldn't possibly find in favour of. In essence the judge said that they were open to certain arguments being made, but the defendant never tried to make them and instead opted for a bat-shit crazy defense coupled with irresponsible and outright illegal conduct. It's not hard to see why Tenenbaum wound up getting the judgement that he did.
I would suggest that if a web developer is incapable of making browsers render the same site consistently using CSS then they have a great deal more to learn. The problems with cross browser rendering issues have long since been solved.
You might also try
http://reference.sitepoint.com/css
It's an interesting idea, but like a lot of CAPTCHA alternatives it would only survive on a small scale.
The reality is it'd be quite trivial for a bot to request the page on which the form is displayed and retrieve the appropriate cookie and then subsequently parse the response to determine which form fields match up with which labels, something which is trivially done in any standards compliant website. At that point all they need to do is post to the server using that cookie and those form fields and they're through.
It's not so much making a parser for this syntax that's the issue, the issue is the ambiguity between functions in namespaces and static classes. See my post for further details.
Not at all, there were some serious ambiguity issues that needed to be resolved.
Take the following code:
----------
# first file
namespace Foo;
function blarg()
{
echo "function";
}
# second file
class Foo {
public static function blarg()
{
echo "method";
}
}
# third file
Foo::blarg(); // what does this output?
-------
The problem here is that calling a static method and calling a function within a namespace share the exact same syntax, so at a glance you can't be sure what will happen.
If we assume that PHP internally does its lookups in these situations as function first, then class, then there's four possible scenario's in this situation.
1. You have both files included at once, PHP gives a fatal error due to the ambiguity.
2. You only have the first file (namespaced function) included, so it outputs "function".
3. You only have the second file (static class) included, so it outputs "method".
4. You have neither files included, but you have defined an autoload method which loads your static class file and outputs "method".
Obviously the ambiguity is a serious issue, so you need to resolve it somehow. Either you make a special syntax for calling functions in namespaces, you change namespaces so they can only be used for classes, or you change the seperator for namespaces to something else.
I read about this sometime ago, so keep in mind that it may no longer be correct. As I understand it, Flashblock works by analyzing the DOM as it's loaded and anytime it sees Flash content it removes it and inserts its own Flashblock placeholder. What this means is that it is possible for Flash to execute before it is removed, however given the delay before the SWF in question is downloaded it's very unlikely that it would begin executing before Flashblock is able to remove it.
Actually the worse part of bootcamp is just having to restart my computer everytime I want to play a game. It seems like a small issue but it does get very annoying after awhile.
Just out of curiousity, why were you concerned with the performance of those functions?
Actually JavaScript performance is extremely important to Firefox, as the UI and its countless addons run on JavaScript.
As for rendering performance, I haven't really encountered any websites where I noticed any issues with the speed at which it was being rendered, any slowness has always been with poor performance server side when serving up the requisite HTML, CSS and JavaScript files. That said, if you have any good examples of poor rendering performance I'd be interested to take a look.
I thnk we may have the all-too-common case of developers optimising for specific benchmarks and ending up with code that's extremely fast...at running those benchmarks. Needless to say, SunSpider ran FAR faster with JIT enabled.
You'd be wrong in that assessment. The reason you see the V8 benchmarks showing poor performance for TraceMonkey (Firefox's JIT engine) is due to the tests heavy emphasis on recursion, something for which there is no support for yet (though its expected to arrive in time for Firefox 3.1). Other tests such as SunSpider put far less emphasis on recursion so naturally you're going to see larger benefits.
So, what you really have a case of is simply a product that's not yet complete (hence alpha), but which is still being developed very heavily.
* Faster JavaScript: How much do you want to bet that V8 will quickly become part of WebKit.
SquirrelFish might object.
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/Glossary
Just typing in 'email' may not seem like its of much value, if gmail is just a ctrl click away, but think about this command
email this to george
That command would take 'this' (the currently selected text), open up gmail and insert it into the body with the to field set to the best match it can find for george in your address book.
The next step of course is to add support for other email clients as well, both those on the web and those that live on the desktop. It's not there yet, but there's definitely a lot of potential in it.
I don't know about the parent, but I do work professionally as a web developer and code to standards. It doesn't hurt me at all, in fact I've had clients come to me specifically because of the high quality of standards based work that I churn out.
Granted, not all clients are going to be aware of standards and their affect on accessibility and search engine optimization, but it doesn't make standards based web development the veritable money-pit that some make it out to be.
I use NoScript and Flashblock and find it works well. With both you can easily enable javascript if needed (for the likes of digg, etc.) while still stopping horrible flash advertisements showing up.
Certainly it's vital, but prepared statements are hardly the only way to attain such security.
Web Developers should have some control over your browser, but only some.
Oh and arguing in absolutes is the height of stupidity.
You should really write those kinds of control statements as
<?php if($something): ?>
more html
<?php else: ?>
some other html
<?php endif; ?>
that way you avoid any confusion as to what the closing brace is for.
Simply minifying your scripts by stripping out comments and unneeded whitespace will do almost as good a job compressing the data with eval. Add in gzipping and the difference is negligible, plus there's no additional delay on the client side when that script is decompressed for each and every page that uses it.
While I love Firebug and use it daily for web development, you shouldn't trust its net tab too much. I've found in numerous instances it has grossly understated load times, for example loading a very PHP heavy page which Firebug claimed was loading in 13ms, however serverside performance testing showed that the load time was actually over 1 second. I've actually found Safari's new Web Inspector tools to be much more accurate in this regard so I'd recommend using them for performance testing if you suspect Firebug isn't telling you everything.
Just a small correction. PHP will actually get namespaces in 5.3 which is due out soon-ish I believe.
When did IBM start hating Linux?