Awesome! Here's how it will almost be implemented.
Beta 1 will have it. It will totally destabilize the OS.
Beta 2 will not have it, but it will be replaced with shiny graphics.
Beta 2.5 will have to remove the shiny graphics, because these too will destabilize the system.
Beta 3 will put it back, working perfectly.
Rc 1 will be totally unstable and also have gaping security holes.
Rc 2 will look like Server 2000
Rc 3 will look like "longhorn" but without the virtualization. However, the shiny graphics will be there.
Anyone signing up for the "upgrade"? I hope you like vapour.
So I state arguments that you could have chosen to refute with facts.
You made specious statements that weren't intelligent enough to merit a response.
and were entirely unable to offer one single rational defense of your statements.
you replied to my post, I did not respond to yours. I stated a position which you failed to refute. I did not come looking for you, you came looking for me. The burden of proof is on you.
rant about how you're magically right and lob ad hominems
You started with the ad hominems. Childish, maybe. Sorry I went there.
This is why I don't debate with people like you. You aren't genuinely interested in what anyone else has to say, because your hubris prevents you from seeing what you probably read on some atheests ar kewl website. The only other reason to debate you would be for intellectual stimulation, but given the poor quality of your previous posts that would not provide much. So like I said, arguing with you is pointless.
What is telling, though, is that you attack my beliefs with such vigor. I haven't attacked your beliefs once. I attacked your misconceptions about the Bible, maybe, but not your belief system as an Atheist. I feel no need to do so, as I am secure in my own beliefs. Insecure people feel the need to go on the offensive. You could have asked questions rather than proffering baseless, uninformed claims about the Bible. Your methods reveal your intent, though, which is why I indicated in the first place that I wouldn't argue with you (I guess I can't resist). Just let me help you with one thing, though: next time you get into a debate with someone who is informed about the Bible, listen, don't assume you know everything. You might learn something. Your summation of the Bible was quite incorrect, and what happens when you start with a false premise? You arrive at a bad conclusion.
Yep, I should have known better. You just want to argue. I have better things to do than to argue with imbeciles. You have already wasted too much of my time. Get lost.
you mention one can "hide" his/her beliefs
Sorry, I did not mean to imply you should. I just meant that people on the street (in stores, etc) cannot make snap judgements by merely looking at you. Of course, I do think your argument is valid. People of certain "non-traditional" belief systems are discriminated against. I can certainly see how Athiests, in certain settings, fall into this category. Don't hide who you are, though. As someone once said, "Be yourself. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
You can certainly decide to see evidence of what you want to believe (a God) if you have already chosen to do so
It's the other way around. I didn't always believe in God. But I do now because I see evidence of his existence. The bible contains wisdom that is unparalled in both ancient and modern times.
...That is the entire basis of the Judeo-Christian religion. Any of the other tenets rest squarely on this exact basis.
No it's not. Your summation of the Bible is incorrect. If you use words like "exact" you should be exact.
Tell me how anything but extreme credulity could possibly lead a reasponable person to consider this anything but insane?
Mu. Your summation was a strawman.
If you would like for me to correct your misunderstanding, I can attempt to do so. If you are genuinely interested in my perspective, I can share it. If you just want to argue, then I have better things to do.
in that while the US has pretty much overcome racial and gender discrimination, it's nowhere near that stage when it comes to religion...In many parts of the country, it's arguably "better" to be a black woman than a white male atheist
Oh, I dunno about all that. I guess your qualifier "In many parts of the country" means rural areas or the South, aka the Bible belt. Assuming you are a white guy who is an Athiest, you'd be much better off. It's not as though anyone would necessarily *know* your beliefs. A black person cannot hide. I have travelled to the south (Yazoo MS) with some black friends and I can tell you, I was surprised by the differential in how I was treated when by myself and with them. Racists are so backwards and dumb. But that's another story.
Also, in lots of circles, as a Christian, I often feel discriminated against. Maybe that is also due to the fact that my beliefs don't fit in with all the subtly-racist, uber-patriotic, neo-Fundamentalist zealots. But being a Christian, I am also ridiculed by zealots on the/. side of the fence, too. Watch -- someone will reply to this post negatively (though maybe saying that prevents it from happening, we'll see). Just because many who claim to be Christian are real morons, people around here just lump us all together. That's frustrating. Just because a person claims to have faith doesn't mean said faith is based on mere credulity. I believe God gives us ample evidence upon which to base well-founded beliefs.
Ideally none of these factors would make any difference.
Agreed. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I hate Atheists. Just because I disagree with you that doesn't give me license to hate you or discriminate against you. I have friends who are Athiest, and at times we discuss religion. We don't have to agree by the end of the conversation. Not that I believe in moral relativism, I do not think my Athiest friends are right;). But what has happened to the concept of agreeing to disagree? Why do we (people in general) want everyone else to think just like us?
I think, just in general, everyone group tends to think it's discriminated against in some fashion. How much of that is real and how much is perceived, well, that's just impossible to tell I suppose. But I would pretty much bet that blacks have it worse than athiests in terms of discrimination. Seeing as how I belong to neither group, I may be somewhat objective in this regard.
Funny...I work for a large company and you'd be surprised by the number of live web-applications developed by overpaid contractors which are rife with holes for SQL injection and XSS attacks. Present company excluded, certainly;). And that's not even the ones developed by internal employees (yuck).
In all seriousness, you are right though. It's amazing how bad programmers can render otherwise secure servers and development methodologies (like LAMP) totally insecure. On the intranet where I work, its even worse. You'd just shudder at some of this stuff.
I'd say the claim that 70% of all sites are hackable is not far off.
You have to use Wikipedia like you'd use any other encyclopedia -- either as a means to satisfy general curiousity about a subject or as a starting point for serious research.
If you have to do serious research, as in where you'd have to cite sources, you would never rely on just an encyclopedia anyhow. So use wikipedia's external links and cite these if they are reputable. Then, go back and contribute some time and correct the wiki article if necessary.
Just because wikipedia is not a great source to cite on university level writings doesn't mean it's not a good starting point for research.
You are so right on. Thank you for killing that horrid analogy.
The people I know who pirate music, software, et al have no altrusitic reason for doing so. They just don't want to pay the (often oppressive) prices for the product. Yes, a Vista upgrade is waaaaay overpriced and CDs cost waaaaay more than they should. But piracy != fighting for freedom.
The RIAA sucks. Quit buying their crap. That's how you hurt them. That's how you make your point.
Interesting. I figured that the thead/tbody/tfoot were optional. However, using Firebug's DOM inspector (If you don't use Firebug for Firefox, get it!), I see that the tbody is implicitly created despite the fact it's not in the actual source code. Oddly enough, thead and tfoot are not. But that does seem to support what you are saying, namely, that the HTML parser implicitly creates it. Personally, I don't like implicit in cases like this. Anyhow, I think you are right.
Well, then here is yet another argument in favor of confining your coding practice to one browser. Writing code for just one browser is bad regardless of browser.
Welcome to life as a web developer. IE sucks. Repeat that like a mantra and you'll get by just fine.
In all seriousness, you will in time learn what to do and what not to do in order to appease IE, the worst piece of software ever invented. Stay the course and code to standards and 99% of the time you'll be just fine.
This is also why I alluded to the KISS principle: if you can, avoid complex stuff. Less for IE to break. Part of coding to standards is, at least in spirit, simplicity.
For times when you just have to get fancy, you just have to learn what IE wants. An example: building table rows via javascript. didjaknow IE *REQUIRES* that you use a tbody tag when appending table rows? IIRC failure to do so won't give you an error, but it sure won't work. So before you get happy and appendChild(myrow) into the table, you gotta have a a tbody. Not sure if that's a misinterpretation of standards or what, but no other browser requires that you do this. Again, that's what sometimes happens when you get fancy. Far worse would be to avoid standards and use IE-only code. Strictly speaking, one could argue that what I mentioned has little to do with the standards you use when writing markup. True, but it does illustrate that IE is a very odd browser. Good web developers have to take the shotgun approach and code to standards, and then fill in the holes IE creates for you. And Microsoft shows little interest in fixing things. They have the market share and to hell with everyone else including the people who develop the software that runs in their browser. I hope IE gets displaced very soon, but I am not optimistic that it ever well.
The short of it: blame IE and not the standards. Learn to deal with it.
Says it all. I am so sick of the misconception "We are gonna do it on the cheap and make it IE only".
On the other hand, if you jump on all the IE specific functionality you have a few issues. Will it work on old versions of ie? Will it work if people have their active X controls set to "high security"? Will IE break your sites functionality in a security upgrade?
Yes I've seen it all. I have a team member whose coding skills are stuck in 1998 and he writes stuff (on the intranet) that uses all kinds of proprietary IE crap. Every time IE gets an upgrade, or my company implements some new security patch, he has to test everything. Yet he always ridicules others who write using standards claiming that "IE is the company standard browser!". What a fool. Some people never learn.
Or am I just being ignorant in thinking this isn't really a major problem anymore?
It shouldn't be. These days, coding websites for IE only reflects the web developer's utter lack of current knowledge. It's like saying "Help me! I seem to have fallen in 1997 and can't get up!" It takes virtually no extra work to write stuff cross browser (or at least close enough), and if you think it does take too much work then your skills aren't what they should be. Just use web standards. Couple that with the good ole KISS* principle, and presto. Anyone who doesn't get that should never ever again write another web interface, IMO.
*you know: Rock and Roll all night, Party everyday! (yes, I couldn't resist)
If we understood the earth, we wouldn't make such a mess of it. Yet we dump crap into oceans without any heed to the consequences, we cut down forests without considering what lives in there, we try (unsuccessfully) to force large rivers into channels so we can develop on natural floodplains, and now we are talking about wrapping the earth with a giant tin foil umbrella? Face it, man is retarded. We know nothing and have the hubris to pretend we know it all.
Besides, even if some crazy Rube-Goldberg contraption were to solve some problems, we'd just find some other way to screw things up. It's called risk compensation, and we're darn good at it. The root of the problem here isn't technological -- instead there is a fundamental problem with mankind in general. Failure to address the root problem and the devising of some crazy contraption intended to fix our mess isn't going to fix a thing.
But monitoring outgoing traffic is important. Especially in the context of this discussion. A cyber attack like this one uses Zombie PCs to crapflood a server (in the case a DNS server). If you don't have a way to block outgoing traffic, then your PC could easily be utilized as a zombie.
Plus, XP firewall doesn't actually stealth every port. It stealths ports from half open scanning, but doesn't stealth ports on full scans. To put it another way, it doesn't totally hide your system on a network.
I don't know, you personally may have good results from using Windows Firewall. But given the cost of firewalls like Zonealarm, why not get one and have better protection? Yes, these could theoretically introduce some problems. But then again, so would any security software. But the reality is that you have to run something and you have to weight risks against benefits.
Windows Firewall? Are you serious? Windows Firewall? Surely you jest.
Not that Parent doesn't make a valid point, since there are a number of *good* free firewall programs out there. Try Zonealarm, Kerio, etc. But don't use Windows Firewall.
Anyone else thing Bill is starting to sound more and more like the Black Knight?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come Here. ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me? BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible! ARTHUR: You're a looney. BLACK KNIGHT:The Black Knight always triumphs. Have at you!
In many cases it works to your advantage to give notice. How many times do you hear about sysadmins or like jobs (where you could do a lot of damage) being walked out after giving notice, but being paid for the two weeks? I remember stories right here on slashdot about that, and many of the comments indicated that was not a totally unusual experience. I don't know about you, but what better way is there to leave a job than with two extra weeks vacation (because you'd drain all your vacation first, right)?
Maybe my theory is based on anecdote, but look at it like this: you stand to lose nothing from turning in notice. Ok, so people may not be nice to you any more. Who cares? In two weeks it'll be a memory. Unless you just have an axe to grind and want to screw over your former co-workers (because the company itself won't care much) just turn in notice. The courteous thing is often the right thing. I guess I sound like Jiminy Cricket now:)
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome! Here's how it will almost be implemented.
Beta 1 will have it. It will totally destabilize the OS.
Beta 2 will not have it, but it will be replaced with shiny graphics.
Beta 2.5 will have to remove the shiny graphics, because these too will destabilize the system.
Beta 3 will put it back, working perfectly.
Rc 1 will be totally unstable and also have gaping security holes.
Rc 2 will look like Server 2000
Rc 3 will look like "longhorn" but without the virtualization. However, the shiny graphics will be there.
Anyone signing up for the "upgrade"? I hope you like vapour.
ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
BEDEVERE: OF course, my Liege
Nah, I think it was Spurious Pig-like Animal, Mangled.
you replied to my post, I did not respond to yours. I stated a position which you failed to refute. I did not come looking for you, you came looking for me. The burden of proof is on you.
You started with the ad hominems. Childish, maybe. Sorry I went there.
This is why I don't debate with people like you. You aren't genuinely interested in what anyone else has to say, because your hubris prevents you from seeing what you probably read on some atheests ar kewl website. The only other reason to debate you would be for intellectual stimulation, but given the poor quality of your previous posts that would not provide much. So like I said, arguing with you is pointless.
What is telling, though, is that you attack my beliefs with such vigor. I haven't attacked your beliefs once. I attacked your misconceptions about the Bible, maybe, but not your belief system as an Atheist. I feel no need to do so, as I am secure in my own beliefs. Insecure people feel the need to go on the offensive. You could have asked questions rather than proffering baseless, uninformed claims about the Bible. Your methods reveal your intent, though, which is why I indicated in the first place that I wouldn't argue with you (I guess I can't resist). Just let me help you with one thing, though: next time you get into a debate with someone who is informed about the Bible, listen, don't assume you know everything. You might learn something. Your summation of the Bible was quite incorrect, and what happens when you start with a false premise? You arrive at a bad conclusion.
Yep, I should have known better. You just want to argue. I have better things to do than to argue with imbeciles. You have already wasted too much of my time. Get lost.
you mention one can "hide" his/her beliefs Sorry, I did not mean to imply you should. I just meant that people on the street (in stores, etc) cannot make snap judgements by merely looking at you. Of course, I do think your argument is valid. People of certain "non-traditional" belief systems are discriminated against. I can certainly see how Athiests, in certain settings, fall into this category. Don't hide who you are, though. As someone once said, "Be yourself. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
If you would like for me to correct your misunderstanding, I can attempt to do so. If you are genuinely interested in my perspective, I can share it. If you just want to argue, then I have better things to do.
Also, in lots of circles, as a Christian, I often feel discriminated against. Maybe that is also due to the fact that my beliefs don't fit in with all the subtly-racist, uber-patriotic, neo-Fundamentalist zealots. But being a Christian, I am also ridiculed by zealots on the
I think, just in general, everyone group tends to think it's discriminated against in some fashion. How much of that is real and how much is perceived, well, that's just impossible to tell I suppose. But I would pretty much bet that blacks have it worse than athiests in terms of discrimination. Seeing as how I belong to neither group, I may be somewhat objective in this regard.
oh well...without "developers" like that, I guess we'd have no thedailyWTF.com
Funny...I work for a large company and you'd be surprised by the number of live web-applications developed by overpaid contractors which are rife with holes for SQL injection and XSS attacks. Present company excluded, certainly ;). And that's not even the ones developed by internal employees (yuck).
In all seriousness, you are right though. It's amazing how bad programmers can render otherwise secure servers and development methodologies (like LAMP) totally insecure. On the intranet where I work, its even worse. You'd just shudder at some of this stuff.
I'd say the claim that 70% of all sites are hackable is not far off.
Right you are.
You have to use Wikipedia like you'd use any other encyclopedia -- either as a means to satisfy general curiousity about a subject or as a starting point for serious research.
If you have to do serious research, as in where you'd have to cite sources, you would never rely on just an encyclopedia anyhow. So use wikipedia's external links and cite these if they are reputable. Then, go back and contribute some time and correct the wiki article if necessary.
Just because wikipedia is not a great source to cite on university level writings doesn't mean it's not a good starting point for research.
...and let's hope it's called Wiggety UAC...
You are so right on. Thank you for killing that horrid analogy.
The people I know who pirate music, software, et al have no altrusitic reason for doing so. They just don't want to pay the (often oppressive) prices for the product. Yes, a Vista upgrade is waaaaay overpriced and CDs cost waaaaay more than they should. But piracy != fighting for freedom.
The RIAA sucks. Quit buying their crap. That's how you hurt them. That's how you make your point.
No, but you might get a slap in the face from the attractive female on the bus when you offer to "Squirt a tune to her Zune"!
Interesting. I figured that the thead/tbody/tfoot were optional. However, using Firebug's DOM inspector (If you don't use Firebug for Firefox, get it!), I see that the tbody is implicitly created despite the fact it's not in the actual source code. Oddly enough, thead and tfoot are not. But that does seem to support what you are saying, namely, that the HTML parser implicitly creates it. Personally, I don't like implicit in cases like this. Anyhow, I think you are right.
Well, then here is yet another argument in favor of confining your coding practice to one browser. Writing code for just one browser is bad regardless of browser.
Welcome to life as a web developer. IE sucks. Repeat that like a mantra and you'll get by just fine.
In all seriousness, you will in time learn what to do and what not to do in order to appease IE, the worst piece of software ever invented. Stay the course and code to standards and 99% of the time you'll be just fine.
This is also why I alluded to the KISS principle: if you can, avoid complex stuff. Less for IE to break. Part of coding to standards is, at least in spirit, simplicity.
For times when you just have to get fancy, you just have to learn what IE wants. An example: building table rows via javascript. didjaknow IE *REQUIRES* that you use a tbody tag when appending table rows? IIRC failure to do so won't give you an error, but it sure won't work. So before you get happy and appendChild(myrow) into the table, you gotta have a a tbody. Not sure if that's a misinterpretation of standards or what, but no other browser requires that you do this. Again, that's what sometimes happens when you get fancy. Far worse would be to avoid standards and use IE-only code. Strictly speaking, one could argue that what I mentioned has little to do with the standards you use when writing markup. True, but it does illustrate that IE is a very odd browser. Good web developers have to take the shotgun approach and code to standards, and then fill in the holes IE creates for you. And Microsoft shows little interest in fixing things. They have the market share and to hell with everyone else including the people who develop the software that runs in their browser. I hope IE gets displaced very soon, but I am not optimistic that it ever well.
The short of it: blame IE and not the standards. Learn to deal with it.
thank you for the refinement. damn straight!
*you know: Rock and Roll all night, Party everyday! (yes, I couldn't resist)
Dang, and I was gonna beat him over the head, too. Too busy laughing at your reply to beat anyone. Well played.
If we understood the earth, we wouldn't make such a mess of it. Yet we dump crap into oceans without any heed to the consequences, we cut down forests without considering what lives in there, we try (unsuccessfully) to force large rivers into channels so we can develop on natural floodplains, and now we are talking about wrapping the earth with a giant tin foil umbrella? Face it, man is retarded. We know nothing and have the hubris to pretend we know it all.
Besides, even if some crazy Rube-Goldberg contraption were to solve some problems, we'd just find some other way to screw things up. It's called risk compensation, and we're darn good at it. The root of the problem here isn't technological -- instead there is a fundamental problem with mankind in general. Failure to address the root problem and the devising of some crazy contraption intended to fix our mess isn't going to fix a thing.
But monitoring outgoing traffic is important. Especially in the context of this discussion. A cyber attack like this one uses Zombie PCs to crapflood a server (in the case a DNS server). If you don't have a way to block outgoing traffic, then your PC could easily be utilized as a zombie.
Plus, XP firewall doesn't actually stealth every port. It stealths ports from half open scanning, but doesn't stealth ports on full scans. To put it another way, it doesn't totally hide your system on a network.
I don't know, you personally may have good results from using Windows Firewall. But given the cost of firewalls like Zonealarm, why not get one and have better protection? Yes, these could theoretically introduce some problems. But then again, so would any security software. But the reality is that you have to run something and you have to weight risks against benefits.
Windows Firewall? Are you serious? Windows Firewall? Surely you jest.
Not that Parent doesn't make a valid point, since there are a number of *good* free firewall programs out there. Try Zonealarm, Kerio, etc. But don't use Windows Firewall.
Anyone else thing Bill is starting to sound more and more like the Black Knight?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come Here.
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney.
BLACK KNIGHT:The Black Knight always triumphs. Have at you!
And so on...
In many cases it works to your advantage to give notice. How many times do you hear about sysadmins or like jobs (where you could do a lot of damage) being walked out after giving notice, but being paid for the two weeks? I remember stories right here on slashdot about that, and many of the comments indicated that was not a totally unusual experience. I don't know about you, but what better way is there to leave a job than with two extra weeks vacation (because you'd drain all your vacation first, right)?
:)
Maybe my theory is based on anecdote, but look at it like this: you stand to lose nothing from turning in notice. Ok, so people may not be nice to you any more. Who cares? In two weeks it'll be a memory. Unless you just have an axe to grind and want to screw over your former co-workers (because the company itself won't care much) just turn in notice. The courteous thing is often the right thing. I guess I sound like Jiminy Cricket now