When will the courts realize the bloody obvious fact that bits on a hard drive are evidence of nothing! Until computers are not able to be remotely hijacked with all tracks erased, there's no way to prove who put the bits there!!!
Probably not until they finally figure out that, until houses are not able to be snuck into, there's no way to prove who put anything there either!
Why in the world do you need a centralized registry anyway? Can't we just mandate that any adult-content spam needs to be marked with a certain header flag, and do the filtering at the client level?
This will solve the issue of "I didn't know it was a child who signed up for my mailing list"; the punishable offense would simply be sending such an email unflagged, rather than worrying about who you're sending it to.
Better yet - Wikipedia should implement optional ads. I'd gladly tick off a checkbox in my profile to turn on Google ads, and no harm is done to those who don't want to see them.
Unfortunately, there are some dishonest people out there who might be untruthful about such a thing. That's why I recommend Yahoo! use the foolproof security technique found on Busch's website.
The only way to crack that one is to copy your birthdate off of a fake ID.
As it has been said before: Slashdot is focused on technology issues. If you want to talk about how people's lives were ruined, perhaps you could take the discussion to some forum which isn't supposed to be dedicated to a specific topic. Slashdot, however, is.
If every discussion could shot down by the fact that more important things exist, we wouldn't talk about anything, except maybe religion, and the end of the world. "What the hell? We're all going to die some day, we don't know precisely who God is yet, and somehow we're supposed to be up in arms over one earthly hurricane?"
Not everything has to be of life-and-death importance in order to merit concern.
There are many positive words I would use to describe Firefox, but "fun" is not one of them. If your web browsing at work is fun, I think the browser itself is the least of your boss's concerns.
This will also add another level to Microsoft's Inferno of compatibility testing for web developers - as a 2000 user, how am I supposed test my website with the latest version of IE's oddities?
The answer is, without paying excessive amounts and putting up with the latest Windows garbage, I have no idea what my XP users will be looking at.
When you release something to the public, you DON'T have a right to take it out of circulation. To use an analogy-
You're viewing a website like a poster that you put up on your front door. Of course, a year later you have the right to take that down, and no one should be allowed to forcably place that back on your door.
But the web doesn't work that way. When I put up a website, I'm not putting up a poster; I'm setting up a news stand and handing out copies to everyone who walks by. Do I have a right to take back all of those papers I handed out, and disallow every person who took one from showing it to somebody else?
The problem with his solution is that this particularly demonstration "fixed" the problem way beyond its original scope. The problem to overcome was that checkboxes don't accept css styling - And the solution was to turn them all into stars???
it's because they are perfect the way they are
Perhaps they don't deserve radical change as presented here, but existing checkboxes are far from perfect. Particularly, when working with a dark-colored page, you don't want a bright white checkbox to be the only thing a user notices. This solution IS capable of just changing the colors of the box and not the design- and I think that would solve most of what people are complaining about.
I find it annoying when I want to register a domain for a site and find it is being used for something stupid
Dear Sir or Madam:
You are hearby ordered to cease and desist all web-related economic activity. Under section 794B of the No Stupid Website Act, the usage of your domain has been classified as Level 8 Stupidity, exceeding the maximum acceptable Level 3 Stupidity. As your website has been deemed Stupid by our arbiters, it is no longer accepted on the Internet.
Does anyone else realize that this Google Toolbar is just a collection of features which could be (and in most cases, already are) individual extensions?
Apparently so. My friends and I have been getting calls from a Marines recruiter recently... the recruiting must be getting desperate if they're try to get at kids in well-off suburban areas who already have college plans. This just shows you that they really do need a better database, as they're clearly not doing a good job at targeting the right people (I'm 104 pounds with a broken hip, and my friend is a Canadian citizen.)
That call was some seriously aggressive telemarketing. I had to tell the guy repeatedly that I wasn't interested, before he called me "condescending and disrespectful" and finally gave up...
The major credit companies need to revise how the whole credit system works. If they assume that everyone knows everyone else's credit card number by default, they should be able to devise a system a hell of a lot more secure than some 16 digit number.
What about a more secure way to make transactions? For instance:
When you load a web form, you download an randomized arbitary string, A. You type your credit card number into the form, a JavaScript app hashes the card number with string A, resulting in B, and you submit it. The validation company needs only to send A and B to Visa/MasterCard (the ONLY party other than you who knows your number), which they can validate without your credit card number never having ever left your computer.
And please, if the problem is that you're trying to protect your children, please notice that it is *your* responsibility to look after and protect your children. Don't leave something so important to anybody else.
There is a legitimate reason for this legislation, and it's not just because net smut is against parents' regulations. It's because existing laws already make possession of pornographic materials illegal to minors. Forcing ISPs to provide filters does not impose any new restrictions, but serves to enforce legislation which already exists.
Parent post is MUCH better than the featured article, as it actually draws visible comparisons between the software and the house... whereas all the UI Hall of Shame article seems to be able to come up with is "This house is REALLY bad, so it's a lot like software that's really bad..."
When you got off the bike, however, much more time would have passed for everyone else than you.
That's exactly my point. If you were traveling AT the speed of light, the ratio of time passed around you to time passed on the bike becomes infinite. That's why, to quote Greene's Elegant Universe, "a photon never ages."
What it's like to ride a bike at the speed of light.
I'd imagine, then, you would just sit down on the bike, and then get off, since to you, the trip would be instantaneous.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction, question without a question mark, and two periods.
... Using a sentence fragment.
I agree with you, in this particular case. Although no one particularly cares about grammatical rules, which really are flexible, the article is just wrong. Breaks are very different from brakes, and dollars are not pounds. This isn't a small spelling/grammar issue, it's factual inaccuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure you quite understand. The article uses numbers. Numbers don't lie!
Why in the world do you need a centralized registry anyway? Can't we just mandate that any adult-content spam needs to be marked with a certain header flag, and do the filtering at the client level?
This will solve the issue of "I didn't know it was a child who signed up for my mailing list"; the punishable offense would simply be sending such an email unflagged, rather than worrying about who you're sending it to.
Better yet - Wikipedia should implement optional ads. I'd gladly tick off a checkbox in my profile to turn on Google ads, and no harm is done to those who don't want to see them.
Unfortunately, there are some dishonest people out there who might be untruthful about such a thing. That's why I recommend Yahoo! use the foolproof security technique found on Busch's website.
The only way to crack that one is to copy your birthdate off of a fake ID.
Perhaps using a microphone better suits some situations wherein video surveilance is illegal, but audio is okay?
As it has been said before: Slashdot is focused on technology issues. If you want to talk about how people's lives were ruined, perhaps you could take the discussion to some forum which isn't supposed to be dedicated to a specific topic. Slashdot, however, is.
If every discussion could shot down by the fact that more important things exist, we wouldn't talk about anything, except maybe religion, and the end of the world. "What the hell? We're all going to die some day, we don't know precisely who God is yet, and somehow we're supposed to be up in arms over one earthly hurricane?"
Not everything has to be of life-and-death importance in order to merit concern.
There are many positive words I would use to describe Firefox, but "fun" is not one of them. If your web browsing at work is fun, I think the browser itself is the least of your boss's concerns.
The answer is, without paying excessive amounts and putting up with the latest Windows garbage, I have no idea what my XP users will be looking at.
I believe you meant to say Charles J. Sykes?
You're viewing a website like a poster that you put up on your front door. Of course, a year later you have the right to take that down, and no one should be allowed to forcably place that back on your door.
But the web doesn't work that way. When I put up a website, I'm not putting up a poster; I'm setting up a news stand and handing out copies to everyone who walks by. Do I have a right to take back all of those papers I handed out, and disallow every person who took one from showing it to somebody else?
Perhaps they don't deserve radical change as presented here, but existing checkboxes are far from perfect. Particularly, when working with a dark-colored page, you don't want a bright white checkbox to be the only thing a user notices. This solution IS capable of just changing the colors of the box and not the design- and I think that would solve most of what people are complaining about.
Dear Sir or Madam:
You are hearby ordered to cease and desist all web-related economic activity. Under section 794B of the No Stupid Website Act, the usage of your domain has been classified as Level 8 Stupidity, exceeding the maximum acceptable Level 3 Stupidity. As your website has been deemed Stupid by our arbiters, it is no longer accepted on the Internet.
- US Commission of Businesses I Like Only
I'm glad you don't run the world.
Does anyone else realize that this Google Toolbar is just a collection of features which could be (and in most cases, already are) individual extensions?
Apparently so. My friends and I have been getting calls from a Marines recruiter recently... the recruiting must be getting desperate if they're try to get at kids in well-off suburban areas who already have college plans. This just shows you that they really do need a better database, as they're clearly not doing a good job at targeting the right people (I'm 104 pounds with a broken hip, and my friend is a Canadian citizen.)
That call was some seriously aggressive telemarketing. I had to tell the guy repeatedly that I wasn't interested, before he called me "condescending and disrespectful" and finally gave up...
What about a more secure way to make transactions? For instance:
When you load a web form, you download an randomized arbitary string, A. You type your credit card number into the form, a JavaScript app hashes the card number with string A, resulting in B, and you submit it. The validation company needs only to send A and B to Visa/MasterCard (the ONLY party other than you who knows your number), which they can validate without your credit card number never having ever left your computer.
There is a legitimate reason for this legislation, and it's not just because net smut is against parents' regulations. It's because existing laws already make possession of pornographic materials illegal to minors. Forcing ISPs to provide filters does not impose any new restrictions, but serves to enforce legislation which already exists.
Parent post is MUCH better than the featured article, as it actually draws visible comparisons between the software and the house... whereas all the UI Hall of Shame article seems to be able to come up with is "This house is REALLY bad, so it's a lot like software that's really bad..."
+1 confidence in Firefox
+1 free advertising for Secunia
... In other headlines, "Medicinal remedy could cure all forms of cancer."
Evolution just means gradual improvement; it doesn't imply how the evolution takes place. You're thinking of Darwinism.
That's exactly my point. If you were traveling AT the speed of light, the ratio of time passed around you to time passed on the bike becomes infinite. That's why, to quote Greene's Elegant Universe, "a photon never ages."
What it's like to ride a bike at the speed of light. I'd imagine, then, you would just sit down on the bike, and then get off, since to you, the trip would be instantaneous.
And I apologize for my comma splice, although I hope you'll understand my meaning anyway.
... Using a sentence fragment.
I agree with you, in this particular case. Although no one particularly cares about grammatical rules, which really are flexible, the article is just wrong. Breaks are very different from brakes, and dollars are not pounds. This isn't a small spelling/grammar issue, it's factual inaccuracy.