It isn't hard to read. It is available online for free reading. Have a look. I took the time out to read it - and now I know what the parent to this post is on about.
The story hints that the virus was accidentally spread around New Zealand.
Not the case.
There were ideas of importing it and releasing it, but there were also fears that immunity would be quick in appearing. They wanted to do tests to check that the virus would be effective before releasing it.
However some eager, peed off with the rabbits, can't wait for the silly Government, types from the upper South Island got a hold of some "Rabbit Calitrivirus" and let it loose.
What can I say? The useability of these new adverts completely sucks. If you checked out one of the demo pages and tried to click on it, then good luck.
All I ended up doing was clicking on the advert, which although nice and transparent so I couldn't see it, was still in the way.
And I couldn't tab past it either.
Not my web site. I'd never run adverts. They need not have my clicks if they don't want them.
That's a nice thought, but I think it is all about the capitalism you hold so dear.
Apparantly the sweet spot for rolling out new services is a population of 3.5 million people. That means New Zealand, Ireland, and a couple of other countries are great testing pots for the rest of the world. Enough citizens to make it a fair test, and small enough to be controllable.
Now, the question of monopoly...
High speed failed in England - it failed badly. British Telecom had the sweet spot of the monopoly, and it wasn't in any hurry to run DSL out to the exchanges and then set everyone up on them. It was raking in the cash with per-minute phone call charges. Why should it change? DSL isn't a very good financial proposition. And they used their monopoly to act poorly and give their customers a really bad taste. RIP broad band in the UK.
High speed went OK in New Zealand - our local monopoly Telecom was getting its heels nipped by Saturn (now TelstraSaturn), and other people like the Lloyd Group were offering DSL, iHug had their satellite, and Walker Wireless had... wireless. Because of the way Telecom had been privatised and the legislation stopping it eing a bully in some respects (Saturn and Lloyd Group still got a hard time) they ran out DSL, and quite a few people picked it up.
New Zealand still has a shabby connections-per-hundred head of population ratio. US also has a shabby ratio too. South Korea is the best.
But why? Because South Korea embraced that.
In the US, take a look at them! Bickering over profits. Slack-bums not bothering to do the installs. And you wonder what went wrong?
It's the mindset.
And unfortunately for them the US has the wrong one.
BTW, fibre optic cables installed at exchange up the road.:-)
Simply: Speech on a message board is worthless and not legally binding. If you want freedom of speech, yell out your window - and you're more likely to get in trouble for that.
The appellate court found that postings on an Internet message board constituted a "public forum," as defined in the anti-SLAPP statute. The court further ruled the defendants posted opinions as shareholders of ComputerXpress, not competitors, and the matter was therefore "an issue of public interest.
When I first saw the title I immediately thought it was another thing by the same name: Ruby Annotation. (31 May 2001, Marcin Sawicki, Michel Suignard, Masayasu Ishikawa, Martin Dürst, Tex Texin)
The sort of Ruby I had in mind was a type of markup used to add pronunciation alongside text.
I mentioned it before - I am master of my operating system. If I want to tell dpkg (I use Debian) that I have something installed that I don't I should be able to tell the operating system that. There are certain other operating systems that make backups and won't let you remove viruses because they are "Important system files".
A user tells the computer what to do - a computer does not tell the user what to do.
There are two exceptions:
You are using Windows
You are h4x0ring someone elses system
I can ``rm -rf/'' if I want to (and I have root permissions). That's an example of the operating system being done as it is told.
I don't see Apple letting a person (with appropriate permissions) being able to drag the entire operating system to the rubbish bin as being a problem. It's their computer - not OSX's.
Also, make it so you, the user can resize the font. NOt sure how it works, but I've seen my share of pages where moving the font size up and down doesn't work at all. People with poor eyesight will be thankful.
Here's how it works... a web designer who thinks everyone who will visit their site is as artsy and as ably bodied as themselves suddenly gets into his trendy head that a teeny tiny font will be good so he can fit more whizz-bang widgets on a page.
Not being familiar with the use of "font-size: xx-small;" and similiar CSS attributes, they instead specify an absolute font size (eg, 6pt).
Then a visitor comes along whose browser doesn't allow font resizing. Internet Explorer foolishly will not scale absolute font sizes and will only scale relative font sizes. This shortcoming is what you are noticing. On the other hand Opera's zoom and Mozilla's font size increase (Ctrl + +) ride roughshod over what the designer wanted and display what the user wants.
That's the way the web works: The user sees what he wants to see, and how he wants to see it... which is why absolute font sizes are a sign of a small-minded designer (and a broken user agent that can't scale them).
Now regarding his target demographic... it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and he (and a few of his friends) end up being the only people visiting the site.
That game is a nasty thing. In an effort to foil cheating it does a check for a debugger (which WINE seems to feel like) and if so quits with a message telling you to close your debugger.
Well then close the service off. An unuseable service is better than a r00ted server.
It is good to know that it could potentially be rooted. Being ignorant of security holes does not make it secure - no matter what Scott Culp may tell you.
Last version of Tuxracer I played was old and crusty from many months ago, but it did have the capacity to do stunts and tricks.
Hold down the jump key, wait until it powers up, then release it and slam a direction key. You'll spin end of end, flipper over shoulder, or even do a fancy horizontal pirouette.
It's all in there... you just gotta read the docs. (Docs weren't added to make the gzip larger.)
Perhaps it would be a good idea after reading this article to examine publicfile.
It was written by a very security conscious programmer who realises that your private files can easily get out onto the web. That is why publicfile has no concept of content protection (eg, Deny from evilh4x0r.com or.htaccess) and will only serve up files that are publically readable.
From the features page:
publicfile doesn't let users log in. Intruders can't use publicfile to check your usernames and passwords.
publicfile refuses to supply files that are unreadable to owner, unreadable to group, or unreadable to world.
A good healthy does of paranoia would do people good.
The way around having crackers look at your robots.txt for a pointer to sensitive information is be guarded about what you put in it. For example, if I had the url:
/secret-stuff-here/credit-card.txt
I would sure as heck not be putting that in my robots.txt, because your robots.txt could eventually end up in the index too. Instead I would put this:
/sec
That will match and disallow the first address, and the h4x0r still has a lot to guess.
Because 28 days after you took your page offline it will disappear from the Google cache.
Google reindexes web pages, and if they 404 on the next visit, then good bye pork pie! You have to get them while they are hot, eg, when a site has JUST been Slashdotted.
As the users are the coders you often run into two things:
Coders aren't designers
Oooh oooh! Look ma!
The best result is when you get some aesthetics / design / useability people working alongside the coders to knock out their stupid features. The programmer may be able to figure out that C-c C-x C-n C-q is the correct key combination to exit the program, but most users just want a big 'X' in the corner.
Then there is adding lots of useless itty-bitty features. Here FS really shines. Take for example hand-editing of prefs.js in Mozilla. The majority of the stuff that goes into there would make the interface far too clunky, but for the few people that want to frob it, the ability is there.
Now regarding theory vs practice... I've found the 2x8 (two deep, eight items per depth) is good in practice. At one time my documents where organised in a 4x4 (four deep, four items per depth) fashion - very deeply nested, that sort of thing. Finding documents was a nuisance. So I recategorised them into 1x16 (one deep, sixteen items per depth), and it was just 1 click to find what I wanted. But that got a little bit unwieldy as I added more categories, and I eventually settled on a 2x8 solution.
FWIW, the Mozilla crew have got quite extensive useability and other things in their documentation. They actually spent plenty of time on planning how it would act. Cheers Netscape! And you too can request features for Mozilla (file as severity 'enhancement').
1. You, one click from the menubar, can turn Java and Javascript off. You simply uncheck them (directly from the menubar, not some cheesy pop up window). This is quite nice.
What is configuration options this complex doing on the menu? That will just serve to clutter the menu and make it harder to find what you want.
I couldn't find the research (see Microsoft Research or Tomalak's Realm for the link), but there is an optimum complexity of the menu length versus menu depth. And having configuration on the menu makes it into a 1x16 depth menu, instead of a more useable 4x4 or 2x8 menu.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't hard to read. It is available online for free reading. Have a look. I took the time out to read it - and now I know what the parent to this post is on about.
2068 is obsolete.
2616 is the current RFC for the HTTP/1.1 protocol.
They do ... Green Card Lottery- Final One?
The story hints that the virus was accidentally spread around New Zealand.
Not the case.
There were ideas of importing it and releasing it, but there were also fears that immunity would be quick in appearing. They wanted to do tests to check that the virus would be effective before releasing it.
However some eager, peed off with the rabbits, can't wait for the silly Government, types from the upper South Island got a hold of some "Rabbit Calitrivirus" and let it loose.
Big stink in the papers at the time.
What can I say? The useability of these new adverts completely sucks. If you checked out one of the demo pages and tried to click on it, then good luck.
All I ended up doing was clicking on the advert, which although nice and transparent so I couldn't see it, was still in the way.
And I couldn't tab past it either.
Not my web site. I'd never run adverts. They need not have my clicks if they don't want them.
I found this great quote two days ago (thank you fortune()!).
Guess "Windows Media" sells ...
It's sad, I can play Real and Windows Media under Linux, but can't get Quicktime 5 trailers to work. (Note the '5' - they changed the codec.)
That's a nice thought, but I think it is all about the capitalism you hold so dear.
Apparantly the sweet spot for rolling out new services is a population of 3.5 million people. That means New Zealand, Ireland, and a couple of other countries are great testing pots for the rest of the world. Enough citizens to make it a fair test, and small enough to be controllable.
Now, the question of monopoly ...
High speed failed in England - it failed badly. British Telecom had the sweet spot of the monopoly, and it wasn't in any hurry to run DSL out to the exchanges and then set everyone up on them. It was raking in the cash with per-minute phone call charges. Why should it change? DSL isn't a very good financial proposition. And they used their monopoly to act poorly and give their customers a really bad taste. RIP broad band in the UK.
High speed went OK in New Zealand - our local monopoly Telecom was getting its heels nipped by Saturn (now TelstraSaturn), and other people like the Lloyd Group were offering DSL, iHug had their satellite, and Walker Wireless had ... wireless. Because of the way Telecom had been privatised and the legislation stopping it eing a bully in some respects (Saturn and Lloyd Group still got a hard time) they ran out DSL, and quite a few people picked it up.
New Zealand still has a shabby connections-per-hundred head of population ratio. US also has a shabby ratio too. South Korea is the best.
But why? Because South Korea embraced that.
In the US, take a look at them! Bickering over profits. Slack-bums not bothering to do the installs. And you wonder what went wrong?
It's the mindset.
And unfortunately for them the US has the wrong one.
BTW, fibre optic cables installed at exchange up the road. :-)
Come to New Zealand, where "Crown Research Institutes" have their own second level: .cri.nz
Simply: Speech on a message board is worthless and not legally binding. If you want freedom of speech, yell out your window - and you're more likely to get in trouble for that.
This was on Tomalak's Realm a few days ago.
Newsbytes: California Appeals Court Upholds Message Board Speech.
Also another link: SJ Mercury: From November 28, 1999; `Cybersmear' lawsuits raise privacy concern.
PS, please read the articles and understand them. I know it is a very hard thing to do, but I've even made them hyperlinks.
When I first saw the title I immediately thought it was another thing by the same name: Ruby Annotation. (31 May 2001, Marcin Sawicki, Michel Suignard, Masayasu Ishikawa, Martin Dürst, Tex Texin)
The sort of Ruby I had in mind was a type of markup used to add pronunciation alongside text.
And that is why I said:
I mentioned it before - I am master of my operating system. If I want to tell dpkg (I use Debian) that I have something installed that I don't I should be able to tell the operating system that. There are certain other operating systems that make backups and won't let you remove viruses because they are "Important system files".
Drag it to the trash bin? What's wrong with that?
A user tells the computer what to do - a computer does not tell the user what to do.
There are two exceptions:
I can ``rm -rf /'' if I want to (and I have root permissions). That's an example of the operating system being done as it is told.
I don't see Apple letting a person (with appropriate permissions) being able to drag the entire operating system to the rubbish bin as being a problem. It's their computer - not OSX's.
Here's how it works ... a web designer who thinks everyone who will visit their site is as artsy and as ably bodied as themselves suddenly gets into his trendy head that a teeny tiny font will be good so he can fit more whizz-bang widgets on a page.
Not being familiar with the use of "font-size: xx-small;" and similiar CSS attributes, they instead specify an absolute font size (eg, 6pt).
Then a visitor comes along whose browser doesn't allow font resizing. Internet Explorer foolishly will not scale absolute font sizes and will only scale relative font sizes. This shortcoming is what you are noticing. On the other hand Opera's zoom and Mozilla's font size increase (Ctrl + +) ride roughshod over what the designer wanted and display what the user wants.
That's the way the web works: The user sees what he wants to see, and how he wants to see it ... which is why absolute font sizes are a sign of a small-minded designer (and a broken user agent that can't scale them).
Now regarding his target demographic ... it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and he (and a few of his friends) end up being the only people visiting the site.
Say what? No Emperor: Battle for Dune?
That game is a nasty thing. In an effort to foil cheating it does a check for a debugger (which WINE seems to feel like) and if so quits with a message telling you to close your debugger.
Well then close the service off. An unuseable service is better than a r00ted server.
It is good to know that it could potentially be rooted. Being ignorant of security holes does not make it secure - no matter what Scott Culp may tell you.
Last version of Tuxracer I played was old and crusty from many months ago, but it did have the capacity to do stunts and tricks.
Hold down the jump key, wait until it powers up, then release it and slam a direction key. You'll spin end of end, flipper over shoulder, or even do a fancy horizontal pirouette.
It's all in there ... you just gotta read the docs. (Docs weren't added to make the gzip larger.)
And you know what is most embarassing? You can get a log of your ass getting whooped at civserver.freeciv.org. With crunchy graphs, and meaty maps.
What can I say? Yes please!. I'm not a developer, but I did contribute screenshots .
The developers are fairly active on #freeciv on Openprojects so drop past. You can probably guess my nick. :-)
Fortunately this virus is open source! Here, let me provide a small optimisation:
if(uptime() <= 3500000) {
WaitUntilNextLocalRootHoleDiscov ered();
}
ExploitLocalRootHole();
DoEvilStuff();
How many people here went through school and actually realised there is no such thing as partially transparent?
The word you want is translucent. DO YOU HEAR ME ROAR! TRANSLUCENT!!!
I think I'll go lie down now ...
Have a look at the terminology.
Perhaps it would be a good idea after reading this article to examine publicfile.
It was written by a very security conscious programmer who realises that your private files can easily get out onto the web. That is why publicfile has no concept of content protection (eg, Deny from evilh4x0r.com or .htaccess) and will only serve up files that are publically readable.
From the features page:
A good healthy does of paranoia would do people good.
The way around having crackers look at your robots.txt for a pointer to sensitive information is be guarded about what you put in it. For example, if I had the url:
I would sure as heck not be putting that in my robots.txt, because your robots.txt could eventually end up in the index too. Instead I would put this:
That will match and disallow the first address, and the h4x0r still has a lot to guess.
Because 28 days after you took your page offline it will disappear from the Google cache.
Google reindexes web pages, and if they 404 on the next visit, then good bye pork pie! You have to get them while they are hot, eg, when a site has JUST been Slashdotted.
As the users are the coders you often run into two things:
The best result is when you get some aesthetics / design / useability people working alongside the coders to knock out their stupid features. The programmer may be able to figure out that C-c C-x C-n C-q is the correct key combination to exit the program, but most users just want a big 'X' in the corner.
Then there is adding lots of useless itty-bitty features. Here FS really shines. Take for example hand-editing of prefs.js in Mozilla. The majority of the stuff that goes into there would make the interface far too clunky, but for the few people that want to frob it, the ability is there.
Now regarding theory vs practice ... I've found the 2x8 (two deep, eight items per depth) is good in practice. At one time my documents where organised in a 4x4 (four deep, four items per depth) fashion - very deeply nested, that sort of thing. Finding documents was a nuisance. So I recategorised them into 1x16 (one deep, sixteen items per depth), and it was just 1 click to find what I wanted. But that got a little bit unwieldy as I added more categories, and I eventually settled on a 2x8 solution.
FWIW, the Mozilla crew have got quite extensive useability and other things in their documentation. They actually spent plenty of time on planning how it would act. Cheers Netscape! And you too can request features for Mozilla (file as severity 'enhancement').
You say:
What is configuration options this complex doing on the menu? That will just serve to clutter the menu and make it harder to find what you want.
I couldn't find the research (see Microsoft Research or Tomalak's Realm for the link), but there is an optimum complexity of the menu length versus menu depth. And having configuration on the menu makes it into a 1x16 depth menu, instead of a more useable 4x4 or 2x8 menu.