Numbers are hard to remember, hard to give to people on a whim, etc.
Easier than remembering exactly which of 23,893,542 permutations of RoodDoodxxx you had to pick as your nick because your first 23,893,541 choices were already taken?
I personally always had a lot fewer problems with random numbers. Maybe it's just me.:)
The pertinent part of the original post was, and I quote: " Before they think about playing with ajax they may wish to fix the slow ass script interpreter in IE."
I don't know how you got to the amazing, totally nonsequiter concept of "MS poisoning the executables" from there, but you might wanna check into how browsers, HTTP servers and AJAX actually work. HINT: the word "interpreter" in the original post ought to clue you in.
You're gonna have to be much more specific than that. I'm not aware of any way to make IIS behave differently with different browsers, except by its parsing the UA string sent by the client. So, IIS by itself can't determine what you're running--it has no choice but to trust the UA sent by the client. Which is what MS did on the poisoned MSN site. Unfortunately, I can easily change my UA string return in Opera or Firefox and even your hacked IIS will think that IE is sending the request.
Now, you can try to hack IIS to send deliberately poisoned responses to ALL clients, but as any Webmaster can attest to, IE's parsing engine is so feeble that you're far more likely to cripple the IE folks rather than the rest. And then you've got the problem that so few Websites run IIS that people would be much more likely to think..."Ah...screwed-up Website!" rather than "Screwed-up Firefox!" Lessee...Apache now powers more Websites than IIS plus all other HTTP servers combined. That's not very encouraging if you want to start an IIS-enabled panic.
it would be cheese for IIS to just start identifying and screwing with Mozilla based browsers
They already tried something akin to this, messing with Opera browsers on just one site. The backlash was immediate, amusing and probably lost Microsoft a few hundred thousand IE users who got tickled by Opera's response and switched.
Office 12 supports PDF as output format. Believe it or not.
Rule No. 1: never confuse the Microsoft term "supports" with the generally understood phrase "does a good job of." Case in point: current versions of Microsoft Publisher, which are supposed to "support" the Postscript format (also from Adobe; PDF is essentially just a gussied-up Postscript). Microsoft has had a good decade to get their Postscript support in line; however, Microsoft's current Postscript drivers in XP are so lousy that many graphic arts consulting companies are urging clients to stick with or downgrade to W2K.
Other fun and games: latest Publisher can't save in a file format that older versions of Publisher can reliably open (just went through this particular nightmare a couple of weeks ago); I can easily create HTML docs exported from Word that Word's Office-mate high-end HTML editor, FrontPage, can't deal with (Word's HTML export capability is "legendary" in the same sense that William Shatner's rendition of "Mr. Tambourine Man" is legendary). Microsoft has a real problem with passing "supported" file formats just between the various versions/components of Office; the odds of Office 12 routinely pushing out PDFs that I could open in, say, Illustrator or CorelDraw or Acrobat will most likely be quite slim. If you do publication production/design like I do and have to deal with thousands of submitted files every year, you learn to cringe whenever somebody says "I did it in Office."
The story of Christ is recounted not only in the Bible but in other historical documents of the day.
Present-day religious scholars find it remarkable that there's very little independent confirmation for the existence and ministry of Jesus apart from Christian sources.
1.1.1 In the first century or so after the death of Jesus there are very few references to Jesus in non-Christian literature.
(a) The brief notice in Tacitus Annals xv.44 mentions only his title, Christus, and his execution in Judea by order of Pontius Pilatus. Nor is there any reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information-it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record.
(b) The only clear non-Christian Jewish reference in this period is that of Josephus Antiquities XVIII.63-64, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum. Virtually all scholars are agreed that the received text is a Christian rewriting, but most are prepared to accept that in the original text a brief account of Jesus, perhaps in a less complimentary vein, stood at this point/2/. Josephus' passing mention of 'Jesus, the so-called Messiah' in Antiquities XX.200 is hard to explain without some previous notice of this Jesus, especially since Josephus elsewhere makes no reference to Christianity, nor even uses the term Christos of any other figure. The different and less 'committed' version of the Testimonium preserved in a tenth-century Arabic quotation from Josephus/3/, while it is unlikely to represent the original text, does testify to the existence of an account of Jesus in Josephus' work underlying the Christianized text. But reconstruction of what Josephus wrote is necessarily speculative.
(c) Rabbinic traditions about Jesus/4/ recall him as a sorcerer who gained a following and 'led Israel astray', and so 'was hanged on the eve of the Passover'. Some of the relevant passages may date from the second century AD, but they are very obscure, and bear little relation to the Jesus his own followers remembered. Their polemical nature and their lack of interest in factual data does not create confidence in their potential as historical evidence for Jesus.
Don't get me wrong but I am seeing some parallels here between Internet Explorer and Netscape. I mean Netscape was THE Browser at the time but we all know what happened.
One difference: this time Google is using Microsoft's own browser against it. Think about it: MS can't corral Google the way it did Netscape by controlling the user platform. Google flows in through cracks that Microsoft can't plug, including Microsoft's own software.
...is how someone who was dumb enough to cough up $200,000 to a scammer was smart enough to have accumulated $200,000 (or maneuvered themselves into a position to get their hands on that much) to begin with.
Perhaps it was some naive person squandering an inheritence. That's the only scenario that even begins to make sense.
Jennifer Garner's contract with her current production company (Disney) expires in November and she'll begin working at Autodesk after that. Her job duties will include product demonstrations and killing people.
...author James Wallace, who wrote the 1993 book Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire, which presents an apparently direct quote from a "Microsoft programmer" who worked on DOS 2.x and made the claim. I don't have the book and the informant isn't attributed by name in the little excerpt I read online, so I recognize that it could be sloppy reportage/sensationalism on Wallace's part. But is he still around and has anyone asked for comment from him?
James Wallace's 1993(92?) book Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire references it.
According to one Microsoft programmer, a few of the key people working on DOS 2.0 had a saying at the time that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run." They managed to code a few hidden bugs into DOS 2.0 that caused Lotus 1-2-3 to breakdown when it was loaded. "There were as few as three or four people who knew this was being done," the employee said. He felt the highly competitive Gates was the ringleader.
I don't have the book and it would be quite interesting to see how author Wallace would respond. I do quite vividly recall the phrase going around in the early 90's, particularly among several of my clients who were running Lotus products.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just checking out the RawPhoto GIMP plugin site http://ptj.rozeta.com.pl/Soft/RawPhoto/ and wondering if anyone was using it.
Sounds promising.* * * * *
The difference between 11th-century Chinese philosophers and 12th-century Chinese philosophers is, mainly, about 100 years.
--Joe Griffith
Easier than remembering exactly which of 23,893,542 permutations of RoodDoodxxx you had to pick as your nick because your first 23,893,541 choices were already taken?
I personally always had a lot fewer problems with random numbers. Maybe it's just me. :)
The main reason: Jewel Box Total Annihilation Editionl .gif
http://www.games.ru/games/linux/screenshots/xjewe
http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/index.pl?photo=1513 8
I don't know how you got to the amazing, totally nonsequiter concept of "MS poisoning the executables" from there, but you might wanna check into how browsers, HTTP servers and AJAX actually work. HINT: the word "interpreter" in the original post ought to clue you in.
Now, you can try to hack IIS to send deliberately poisoned responses to ALL clients, but as any Webmaster can attest to, IE's parsing engine is so feeble that you're far more likely to cripple the IE folks rather than the rest. And then you've got the problem that so few Websites run IIS that people would be much more likely to think..."Ah...screwed-up Website!" rather than "Screwed-up Firefox!" Lessee...Apache now powers more Websites than IIS plus all other HTTP servers combined. That's not very encouraging if you want to start an IIS-enabled panic.
They already tried something akin to this, messing with Opera browsers on just one site. The backlash was immediate, amusing and probably lost Microsoft a few hundred thousand IE users who got tickled by Opera's response and switched.
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1 584361
Rule No. 1: never confuse the Microsoft term "supports" with the generally understood phrase "does a good job of." Case in point: current versions of Microsoft Publisher, which are supposed to "support" the Postscript format (also from Adobe; PDF is essentially just a gussied-up Postscript). Microsoft has had a good decade to get their Postscript support in line; however, Microsoft's current Postscript drivers in XP are so lousy that many graphic arts consulting companies are urging clients to stick with or downgrade to W2K.
http://www.atlantictechsolutions.com/pmfaq1.html
Other fun and games: latest Publisher can't save in a file format that older versions of Publisher can reliably open (just went through this particular nightmare a couple of weeks ago); I can easily create HTML docs exported from Word that Word's Office-mate high-end HTML editor, FrontPage, can't deal with (Word's HTML export capability is "legendary" in the same sense that William Shatner's rendition of "Mr. Tambourine Man" is legendary). Microsoft has a real problem with passing "supported" file formats just between the various versions/components of Office; the odds of Office 12 routinely pushing out PDFs that I could open in, say, Illustrator or CorelDraw or Acrobat will most likely be quite slim. If you do publication production/design like I do and have to deal with thousands of submitted files every year, you learn to cringe whenever somebody says "I did it in Office."
http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html
Present-day religious scholars find it remarkable that there's very little independent confirmation for the existence and ministry of Jesus apart from Christian sources.
The following excerpt is from a Christian ministry Website, http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html
1.1.1 In the first century or so after the death of Jesus there are very few references to Jesus in non-Christian literature.
(a) The brief notice in Tacitus Annals xv.44 mentions only his title, Christus, and his execution in Judea by order of Pontius Pilatus. Nor is there any reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information-it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record.
(b) The only clear non-Christian Jewish reference in this period is that of Josephus Antiquities XVIII.63-64, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum. Virtually all scholars are agreed that the received text is a Christian rewriting, but most are prepared to accept that in the original text a brief account of Jesus, perhaps in a less complimentary vein, stood at this point /2/. Josephus' passing mention of 'Jesus, the so-called Messiah' in Antiquities XX.200 is hard to explain without some previous notice of this Jesus, especially since Josephus elsewhere makes no reference to Christianity, nor even uses the term Christos of any other figure. The different and less 'committed' version of the Testimonium preserved in a tenth-century Arabic quotation from Josephus/3/, while it is unlikely to represent the original text, does testify to the existence of an account of Jesus in Josephus' work underlying the Christianized text. But reconstruction of what Josephus wrote is necessarily speculative.
(c) Rabbinic traditions about Jesus /4/ recall him as a sorcerer who gained a following and 'led Israel astray', and so 'was hanged on the eve of the Passover'. Some of the relevant passages may date from the second century AD, but they are very obscure, and bear little relation to the Jesus his own followers remembered. Their polemical nature and their lack of interest in factual data does not create confidence in their potential as historical evidence for Jesus.
1. The platypus
2. The Chicago Cubs
One difference: this time Google is using Microsoft's own browser against it. Think about it: MS can't corral Google the way it did Netscape by controlling the user platform. Google flows in through cracks that Microsoft can't plug, including Microsoft's own software.
You Americans really got it easy.
...is how someone who was dumb enough to cough up $200,000 to a scammer was smart enough to have accumulated $200,000 (or maneuvered themselves into a position to get their hands on that much) to begin with.
Perhaps it was some naive person squandering an inheritence. That's the only scenario that even begins to make sense.
I'm sorry--I panicked.
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml
No. Now, if you'll kindly step over here, this nice lady is going to give you a product demonstration.
Jennifer Garner's contract with her current production company (Disney) expires in November and she'll begin working at Autodesk after that. Her job duties will include product demonstrations and killing people.
Just as I always suspected. Lawrence Welk--Closet Spliffmeister.
http://www.zeldman.com/classics/welk/
...Sparks is right out.
S CMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000740D.01._
"The pale, stale ale with the foam at the bottom."
http://www.rustycans.com/oldfroth.html
...author James Wallace, who wrote the 1993 book Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire, which presents an apparently direct quote from a "Microsoft programmer" who worked on DOS 2.x and made the claim. I don't have the book and the informant isn't attributed by name in the little excerpt I read online, so I recognize that it could be sloppy reportage/sensationalism on Wallace's part. But is he still around and has anyone asked for comment from him?
One of the excerpts I've found online is here: http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B555.html
James Wallace's 1993(92?) book Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire references it.
According to one Microsoft programmer, a few of the key people working on DOS 2.0 had a saying at the time that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run." They managed to code a few hidden bugs into DOS 2.0 that caused Lotus 1-2-3 to breakdown when it was loaded. "There were as few as three or four people who knew this was being done," the employee said. He felt the highly competitive Gates was the ringleader.
Quote found at: http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B555.html
I don't have the book and it would be quite interesting to see how author Wallace would respond. I do quite vividly recall the phrase going around in the early 90's, particularly among several of my clients who were running Lotus products.
Why does all of southern Nevada smell like burnt tuna this morning?
This is weird.
http://despair.com/ambition.html
My personal favorite.