Out of curiosity, does anybody know why Wikipedia doesn't post charts and graphs of the useragents visiting Wikipedia? It seems that would probably be more accurate than the charts and graphs they have up now.
Didn't you read the summary? Nobody's talking about switching to a better OS. They're switching to pirated Windows. That means they'll still be writing software that draws people to Windows, and they'll be opening themselves up to lawsuits.
It's sheer genius on Microsoft's part. They save money by not packaging the SP with MSDN, they have developers wooing users to their OS, and they get to sue the developers for way more than a regular license fee or MSDN price.
I can already ask Yahoo or Google a question and get a sensible answer. I guess I'm missing how this "semantic web" thing equates with AI that understands the meaning of English.
Besides that, if you rely on the "content providers" to provide the meta-data the system is less than useless. Legitimate sites won't use it or update it, and illegitimate sites will abuse the system.
What's the point of having a DTD if it won't change? Oh yeah, there is none. Conceptually, the DTD is there to define the data, and unless you know what is in the DTD, you cannot use it to validate, which is its purpose. And conceptually, if you assume the data is defined a certain way, you don't need a DTD.
What's the point in having a DTD if it *can* change? All files using the old version would be invalidated. And more important, any parser made for the old version would start rejecting XML that it could parse. That's part of the reason why it doesn't work like that.
Generally the DTD is for the person parsing the XML. If you're writing the XML, you don't need a DTD, because you already know the schema. If it's only for the XML writers, all you'd need to do is place your schema with the rest of the specs for your application.
No. The DTD is an agreement between the XML writer and the parser writer on the format of the XML to be used. The actual content of the DTD is completely irrelevant at run time as long as the incoming file says it complies with the DTD the parser expects. Any parser with more than "if (file.dtd == expectedDtd)" has failed. The only good reason I can think of to even touch the actual DTD at runtime would be for a general purpose XML validator, which, ironically, is a special case.
Hey, you made the specs. Why should you blame me if I'm conforming? Does the spec allow me to assume that all my documents are going to use that DTD, and that it won't change?
Sigh.
If you're the one writing the xml this is almost no concern of yours.
The DTD won't change. That's the point of having a standard DTD.
The standards say absolutely nothing about fetching the DTD from the web every time an xml file is being validated.
I'm trying to decide which is worse. The "article" is a page complaining "We were unable to forward you to the advertisement you clicked on.", or the fact that most of the people posting comments seem blissfully unaware of that fact.
Could this be the first superhero comic where the audience roots for the villain and is constantly happy throughout the comic only to get really let down in the end?
That may be true, but we aren't talking about the distant past. Windows may still have security issues but that doesn't mean that a person can make it reasonably secure: keeping up to date with patches, using anti-virus, avoiding insecure software such as Internet Explorer, etc. Plenty of people use Windows without it getting infected. And my point still stands. The fact that he allowed his brother to connect an infected machine to his network isn't the fault of the OS.
Average people want their computers to be like a TV. They want to turn it on, browse the interweb, IM their friends, type up a paper, and then turn it off. Any security plan that requires more work than a TV will fail once it scales to the "real world".
I don't like the idea, but that's probably the future of consumer grade computers.
Real tastes so much better, I only comprehend why they sell the other stuff because they're all cheap bastards.
No, the people buying ice cream are cheap bastards. The ice cream companies don't give a shit either way, they produce what sells. This is an example of people "voting with their wallet".
If you think "traditional" ice cream is that much better, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own ice cream company.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I at least acknowledge they have one of the largest research departments in the software industry. Granted this particular piece of research is silly, but they mostly do decent work.
There's no shortage of legitimate complaints against Microsoft. No need to make shit up in the one area they do things right.
But basically this vulnerability only matters if you're the same kind of person that falls for phishing.
Haven't Firefox zealots been pushing Firefox to the "kind of person that falls for phishing"? I was under the impression that "being secure" was one of their big selling points that they liked to talk about.
Now why would a business owner keep an employee that was great yesterday but will stink tomorrow? They wouldn't, and you wouldn't expect them to do so. So the trick is in guessing when an employee is going to become problematic. That's based on what you learn about them as a person -- which is what they do after hours.
Any regular employer, from 10 person startups to 200k person megacorps base it on job performance. I don't know what world you work in, but in "real life" firing somebody just because you expect they'll stop performing would bring a lawsuit.
But in practice, no employor should be forced to keep an employee. The job is not a public resource, it's a private job -- and it's mine to manage any way I choose.
I agree with you, but in my experience sane employers base their management decisions on the employee's job performance.
Hey, of all the replies tonight to this thread, how many said: "hey, I'm a business owner too, and I disagree with you"?
I don't see any business owners saying they agree with you either.
In fact, it seems most of the posts are people telling you what a terrible boss you must be. Maybe that's why it seems you're "going it alone"? Nobody likes working for an asshole. Especially not an arrogant one.
Just because it wasn't possible before to know what you're employees are like is not only not the point, it's also very much the point. On the first note, more information is a good thing. And you if can discover that your employee is whatever you consider weird, you're welcome to stop working with them. On the second note, if you can discover that your employee is whatever you consider weird, so can your clients. A public face is a public face, and if an employee intends to work in a job where that face matters -- i.e. the face of the company -- then yes, their on-line activities count just as much as their off-line activities.
The complaint here is that companies are doing this to people who aren't the "face of the company", who's personal activities shouldn't be any of their employer's business. In almost every case the employer's only concern should be "How well does this person perform their job duties?" If one of those job duties is representing the company during their off hours, then by all means, fire the person when they do something stupid outside of work. But most people aren't paid to represent the company in their free time, so firing them for doing something stupid out of work doesn't make any sense.
My father taught me this when I was six, and it rings true here. At a baseball game, some reporter was going around asking for public opinion regarding some baseball issue. My father denied the interview saying that he was the officer of a public communications company, and should not be presented publicly by this reporter; even on a matter as unrelated as his opinions on baseball.
Now, I own and operate my own company. And yes, I look for good people to work with me. You'd beter believe I want them to be good people all-around. Their welcome to vent to me, and they can insult me to my face all they like. They can insult my clients to my face as well. But when they do anything that my clients can see, or to which my clients have access, they had better conduct themselves in a manner that I deem suitable.
Right or wrong, if my client says that they don't like my employee, I take that very seriously. Accidents and general human error are acceptable in moderation. Disregard for my business -- even during off-hours -- is completely unacceptable.
In my perspective, many employees (I don't mean only mine, I do in fact include many of my friends that work for others) consider their employment to be a right. No matter how good you are at your job, your employor has invested way more time and way more effort, and way more RISK into the business than you'll ever even consider for as long as you're an employee.
You don't deserve squat -- that's why you get nothing but money for your time. You work is appreciated, but the intelectual property isn't yours, and the risk wasn't yours, and the value-rewards won't be yours. The clients aren't yours, the company isn't yours. There's an enormous risk in starting your own business, and it's a gigantic under-taking to maintain any business. Being a cog in the machine is worth the grease, and little more.
My father would come home, after long days of negotiating some government contract for the communication company for which he worked. After a successful victory, he'd boast to his wife how he'd saved the company millions of dollars. She'd turn to him and say: "so, how much of it is ours?". Of course the answer is zero. That was his job, he did it well, he got paid as expected, plus or minus an annual bonus. The given victory meant nothing financially.
Know that when you work for someone else, you get to avoid the many headaches that go into running a business and being accountable to an entity that you've created. Also know that when you go out on your own, you deserve all of the glory, credit, blame, and defeat.
Get over yourself, you're not the only person who's ever started a business.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I bet that's flying off the servers.
At the very least they seem to be missing the point of free software. IF you're going to restrict it that much, why fucking bother?
Out of curiosity, does anybody know why Wikipedia doesn't post charts and graphs of the useragents visiting Wikipedia? It seems that would probably be more accurate than the charts and graphs they have up now.
I'm in the market for a new phone, and I'd love to know why you think the iPhone is so great?
Why bother?
Didn't you read the summary? Nobody's talking about switching to a better OS. They're switching to pirated Windows. That means they'll still be writing software that draws people to Windows, and they'll be opening themselves up to lawsuits.
It's sheer genius on Microsoft's part. They save money by not packaging the SP with MSDN, they have developers wooing users to their OS, and they get to sue the developers for way more than a regular license fee or MSDN price.
I can already ask Yahoo or Google a question and get a sensible answer. I guess I'm missing how this "semantic web" thing equates with AI that understands the meaning of English.
Besides that, if you rely on the "content providers" to provide the meta-data the system is less than useless. Legitimate sites won't use it or update it, and illegitimate sites will abuse the system.
What's the point in having a DTD if it *can* change? All files using the old version would be invalidated. And more important, any parser made for the old version would start rejecting XML that it could parse. That's part of the reason why it doesn't work like that.
No. The DTD is an agreement between the XML writer and the parser writer on the format of the XML to be used. The actual content of the DTD is completely irrelevant at run time as long as the incoming file says it complies with the DTD the parser expects. Any parser with more than "if (file.dtd == expectedDtd)" has failed. The only good reason I can think of to even touch the actual DTD at runtime would be for a general purpose XML validator, which, ironically, is a special case.
Sigh.
Try getting a clue.
Do you have any arguments other than "People who think that are idiots"?
In all fairness, one of those was posted after mine and the other two were AC.
I'm trying to decide which is worse. The "article" is a page complaining "We were unable to forward you to the advertisement you clicked on.", or the fact that most of the people posting comments seem blissfully unaware of that fact.
No, probably not.
Average people want their computers to be like a TV. They want to turn it on, browse the interweb, IM their friends, type up a paper, and then turn it off. Any security plan that requires more work than a TV will fail once it scales to the "real world".
I don't like the idea, but that's probably the future of consumer grade computers.
Unless you want to buy the drive for me, it's still money I could be spending on something else.
Oh yeah, to block the link in the header you'd need to add the following to the selector list:
li > a[title="BETA! - Brief labels that you think best describe an article"]
After digging around the page source, I've come up with the following solution.
If your browser allows user stylesheets (i.e. Opera, Konqueror), adding the following to your user CSS file should do it:
*.tags,
*.tagheader,
*.tagname
{
display: none !important;
width: 0pt !important;
height: 0pt !important;
background: white !important;
margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0pt !important;
padding: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0pt !important;
}
I've just now tried it, and it seems to work, but I take no responsibility if it breaks anything.
No, the people buying ice cream are cheap bastards. The ice cream companies don't give a shit either way, they produce what sells. This is an example of people "voting with their wallet".
If you think "traditional" ice cream is that much better, there's nothing stopping you from starting your own ice cream company.
How is avoiding the real problem a "good idea"?
Thanks a lot for posting that. That's almost exactly what I've been looking for.
Taking up 2 USB ports kinda sucks, but won't be an issue for me.
I don't care about the case artwork or the liner notes. I buy CDs because:
It's just a lot more flexible IMO. If I'm going to pay for something, I have to get my money's worth, and I just don't with digital music.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I at least acknowledge they have one of the largest research departments in the software industry. Granted this particular piece of research is silly, but they mostly do decent work.
There's no shortage of legitimate complaints against Microsoft. No need to make shit up in the one area they do things right.
Haven't Firefox zealots been pushing Firefox to the "kind of person that falls for phishing"? I was under the impression that "being secure" was one of their big selling points that they liked to talk about.
Given that, they should fix this immediately.
That doesn't change much. They could've cut taxes and let people spend their money on whatever they wanted.
I already have a digital TV, what good is one of these coupons?
Great! I love when my tax dollars go to important shit like helping fat asses buy new TVs.
I'm sure glad Big Brother knows best, otherwise I would've spent that money on something *I* found important instead.
Any regular employer, from 10 person startups to 200k person megacorps base it on job performance. I don't know what world you work in, but in "real life" firing somebody just because you expect they'll stop performing would bring a lawsuit.
I agree with you, but in my experience sane employers base their management decisions on the employee's job performance.
I don't see any business owners saying they agree with you either.
In fact, it seems most of the posts are people telling you what a terrible boss you must be. Maybe that's why it seems you're "going it alone"? Nobody likes working for an asshole. Especially not an arrogant one.
The complaint here is that companies are doing this to people who aren't the "face of the company", who's personal activities shouldn't be any of their employer's business. In almost every case the employer's only concern should be "How well does this person perform their job duties?" If one of those job duties is representing the company during their off hours, then by all means, fire the person when they do something stupid outside of work. But most people aren't paid to represent the company in their free time, so firing them for doing something stupid out of work doesn't make any sense.
Get over yourself, you're not the only person who's ever started a business.