Yeah, javascript isn't too bad. Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though. No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it.
You are, of course, correct. That's why no one uses XML-based dialects anywhere, ever.
Random example: (input type="checkbox" checked="checked"/)
Why in the fuck would you have a string?
The fact that all attributes in XML (and thereby, XHTML) are quoted removes ambiguity, and avoids any issues with attribute values that have spaces.
Another example could be things having names, IDs, classes seems amazingly redundant.
IDs and classes serve totally different semantic purposes, and names aren't even a part of the standard anymore except when it comes to form elements. Any redundancy that exists is necessary to allow flexibility and semantic correctness.
Then there is anything to do with tables.
Tell me when working with tables is ever fun.
And formatting has tons of stupid quirks.
Well then it's a good thing that Good Web Developers(TM) don't use XHTML for formatting.
Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it isn't really a language.
Well no, it's a language, just not a programming language; XHTML is a dialect of XML, a mark-up language, and a very good one at that. Name me one other mark-up language that's as flexible, powerful, and with as much potential to be extended.
Well I certainly didn't mean to troll, it just annoys me when people make vague statements about an anonymous "they" coming to "tear down" the Internet without any explanation as to what exactly they're referring to. Last time I checked, I didn't see any "Closing Soon" signs in my web browser.
The [sic] was just me being an ass 'cause I was already annoyed.:P Sorry about that.
Shoot, Vista wouldn't have "looked" for an XML file in the case of an encrypted volume in the first place!
How very right you are. That's exactly why your solution would fail miserably, because the unattend.xml file was an integral part of the employee's job. No XML file = sitting there for an hour clicking through installation screens manually.:)
... but you've gotta' admit. That's a pretty genius method right there.
Why don't these people all go work for Microsoft? Maybe if they had their fair share of brilliance, they could start producing products without gaping security holes.
... that information transmitted does not equal information retained? I know that most people are cynical, but let's try to be trusting for once.
It seems to make perfect sense to me that Facebook would give affiliates a simple JavaScript that reports the information back to Facebook, and then the decision whether or not to retain the information happens on the Facebook server, rather than at the browser level. Don't jump to conclusions before you know exactly how the system works-- if the data isn't retained, it's essentially equivalent to it not being transmitted at all.
... and we're all saying the same thing: using an unsecured wireless network isn't a crime.:)
You *could* point out that, by laymen's definitions, a network is not a computer, and you are not accessing any computers that aren't public (ie, web servers, etc.). But then we'd miss out on all the fun with the analogies.
I can't believe what I'm seeing. Is this actually a semi-responsible technology-related decision made by a legislative body?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the complete "scrubbing" of Google et al.'s records, as it were, but the classification of an IP address as personally-identifiable information is definitely a positive step towards Internet freedom, and a reasonable expectation of some degree of privacy. At the very least, it gives you a leg to stand on when you find out that some company has been selling your browsing habits to an advertiser.
I know it's been said before, but it bears saying again: this is considered "in-the-wild"?
When a virus has to ask a user to install it, it becomes purely a social engineering attack. In my opinion, if anything this says something positive about the security of OS X itself, in that is apparent weakest link occurs between the chair and the keyboard.
For the record, the iPhone does have RSS support in its current iteration, just not 100% native (though pretty close:P). Just enter a feed address in Safari's address bar, and it redirects you to the.Mac RSS Reader for iPhone, which looks and behaves similarly to the Safari RSS built-in client.
The question is did he turn it off? You can turn the iPhone fully off just by holding the sleep button for three seconds, and sliding the little "turn off" slider. If he had it on sleep (a single touch of the sleep button), then it makes sense that something like this happened.
I agree with the person who commented on "feel" vs. UI, but I think there's another aspect to it: the aluminum isn't brushed. It's flat, solid, sleek and smooth. It actually matches quite well with the new interface ideas.
Personally, while brushed metal wasn't bad, I'm a fan of the move away from it-- it looked too coarse. To me, the newer styles in varying shades of metal ("platinum" I've heard the style called by a few) feel much smoother and cleaner. Just my 2 cents worth though.
Heh... when you zoom out a couple of times, there's something green in the water that makes it look like a bug splattered against the satellite camera.
I'm probably the only one who finds that amusing, huh?
The lawsuit is a stupid one, regardless of whether the plaintiff has a good point or not. You generally don't sue because you bought something that behaves in a way contrary to what you originally expected.
But even if we pretend for a minute that the lawsuit is a good one... I still giggle.
I don't know what individual in his or her right mind would take on Apple's legal department.:P
Flamebait it may be, but I only ever used MusicMatch for about 2 weeks back when I was a Windows user, because the pop ups and the utter bloat were far too annoying for me.
I haven't seen the new update from Yahoo!, so I can't really offer a fair opinion, but if they've removed features that only the most powerful of power users ever even touched, it might be a good thing for this program. As long as it makes it faster!
So what happens with VoIP solutions, like Skype? They don't intentionally spoof caller ID (as in, to fool the person they're calling), they use numbers from "faraway lands" (so I've been told:P). They're not trying to fool the recipient of the call, but occasionally they do not represent the actual caller (sometimes "Unknown Call" shows, so I suppose that would still be legal). Would this become illegal?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, javascript isn't too bad. Looking at the syntax for html/xhtml makes me want to vomit though. No sane programmer today would design a markup language that remotely resembles it.
You are, of course, correct. That's why no one uses XML-based dialects anywhere, ever.
Random example: (input type="checkbox" checked="checked" /)
Why in the fuck would you have a string?
The fact that all attributes in XML (and thereby, XHTML) are quoted removes ambiguity, and avoids any issues with attribute values that have spaces.
Another example could be things having names, IDs, classes seems amazingly redundant.
IDs and classes serve totally different semantic purposes, and names aren't even a part of the standard anymore except when it comes to form elements. Any redundancy that exists is necessary to allow flexibility and semantic correctness.
Then there is anything to do with tables.
Tell me when working with tables is ever fun.
And formatting has tons of stupid quirks.
Well then it's a good thing that Good Web Developers(TM) don't use XHTML for formatting.
Only way it dodges being the worst language ever is the fact that it isn't really a language.
Well no, it's a language, just not a programming language; XHTML is a dialect of XML, a mark-up language, and a very good one at that. Name me one other mark-up language that's as flexible, powerful, and with as much potential to be extended.
Actually, it's really just that calculus use kicks in at age 34.
Well I certainly didn't mean to troll, it just annoys me when people make vague statements about an anonymous "they" coming to "tear down" the Internet without any explanation as to what exactly they're referring to. Last time I checked, I didn't see any "Closing Soon" signs in my web browser.
The [sic] was just me being an ass 'cause I was already annoyed. :P Sorry about that.
And your source for this (and definition of "lose it's [sic] future") would be...
How very right you are. That's exactly why your solution would fail miserably, because the unattend.xml file was an integral part of the employee's job. No XML file = sitting there for an hour clicking through installation screens manually. :)
... but you've gotta' admit. That's a pretty genius method right there.
Why don't these people all go work for Microsoft? Maybe if they had their fair share of brilliance, they could start producing products without gaping security holes.
Trying to sell your product is offering it at a discount to prospective OEMs, or providing them a bonus for "recommending" it.
Unfair business practice is refusing to sell them copies of Windows unless they made it their exclusive OS option.
... that information transmitted does not equal information retained? I know that most people are cynical, but let's try to be trusting for once.
It seems to make perfect sense to me that Facebook would give affiliates a simple JavaScript that reports the information back to Facebook, and then the decision whether or not to retain the information happens on the Facebook server, rather than at the browser level. Don't jump to conclusions before you know exactly how the system works-- if the data isn't retained, it's essentially equivalent to it not being transmitted at all.
... and we're all saying the same thing: using an unsecured wireless network isn't a crime. :)
You *could* point out that, by laymen's definitions, a network is not a computer, and you are not accessing any computers that aren't public (ie, web servers, etc.). But then we'd miss out on all the fun with the analogies.
Well then I suppose they would just be stupid, wouldn't they? :P
Oh Microsoft, you silly goose.
Of course, if your backup power source can only last for 8 minutes and 59 seconds, you are in flagrant violation of the law.
I can't believe what I'm seeing. Is this actually a semi-responsible technology-related decision made by a legislative body?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the complete "scrubbing" of Google et al.'s records, as it were, but the classification of an IP address as personally-identifiable information is definitely a positive step towards Internet freedom, and a reasonable expectation of some degree of privacy. At the very least, it gives you a leg to stand on when you find out that some company has been selling your browsing habits to an advertiser.
I know it's been said before, but it bears saying again: this is considered "in-the-wild"?
When a virus has to ask a user to install it, it becomes purely a social engineering attack. In my opinion, if anything this says something positive about the security of OS X itself, in that is apparent weakest link occurs between the chair and the keyboard.
For the record, the iPhone does have RSS support in its current iteration, just not 100% native (though pretty close :P). Just enter a feed address in Safari's address bar, and it redirects you to the .Mac RSS Reader for iPhone, which looks and behaves similarly to the Safari RSS built-in client.
The question is did he turn it off? You can turn the iPhone fully off just by holding the sleep button for three seconds, and sliding the little "turn off" slider. If he had it on sleep (a single touch of the sleep button), then it makes sense that something like this happened.
That was TOP SECRET intellectual property!!! Who gave that to you?
Damn... obsolete before I even finish. :P
yes is indeed handy, but it's not really practical for life applications.
I'm currently in the process of writing no. It should fill the gap just perfectly. :)
Make sure you check out next year's software lineup though-- I hear a patent has been filed for maybe.
Whoa, watch it there... you might just become the RIAA's newest source of income if you get too close to the original.
I agree with the person who commented on "feel" vs. UI, but I think there's another aspect to it: the aluminum isn't brushed. It's flat, solid, sleek and smooth. It actually matches quite well with the new interface ideas.
Personally, while brushed metal wasn't bad, I'm a fan of the move away from it-- it looked too coarse. To me, the newer styles in varying shades of metal ("platinum" I've heard the style called by a few) feel much smoother and cleaner. Just my 2 cents worth though.
Heh... when you zoom out a couple of times, there's something green in the water that makes it look like a bug splattered against the satellite camera.
I'm probably the only one who finds that amusing, huh?
The lawsuit is a stupid one, regardless of whether the plaintiff has a good point or not. You generally don't sue because you bought something that behaves in a way contrary to what you originally expected.
But even if we pretend for a minute that the lawsuit is a good one... I still giggle.
I don't know what individual in his or her right mind would take on Apple's legal department. :P
Flamebait it may be, but I only ever used MusicMatch for about 2 weeks back when I was a Windows user, because the pop ups and the utter bloat were far too annoying for me.
I haven't seen the new update from Yahoo!, so I can't really offer a fair opinion, but if they've removed features that only the most powerful of power users ever even touched, it might be a good thing for this program. As long as it makes it faster!
So what happens with VoIP solutions, like Skype? They don't intentionally spoof caller ID (as in, to fool the person they're calling), they use numbers from "faraway lands" (so I've been told :P). They're not trying to fool the recipient of the call, but occasionally they do not represent the actual caller (sometimes "Unknown Call" shows, so I suppose that would still be legal). Would this become illegal?