search engines are theoretically making it less likely that users will stay on the site past finding the page they wanted
But the gripping hand is that search engines (or other link aggregators) are the vastly predominant reason why users are on a site in the first place. It's been that way forever. Back in the stone age mid-90s, the single most important absolute number one web site (and home page of most, including me) was http://akebono.stanford.edu/ and although the URL has since changed, the principle remains true. Anyone who has worked on the web in the past decade should have known this fact already, and designed their site accordingly.
I often appreciate Neilsen's essays, but this one is just absurd whining.
Google also offers methods to allow searching BUT NOT CACHING of your site.
And if you REALLY don't want deep linking, you can easily use referrer checking to force visitors to use your entry page and browse your content the long way. Just don't be surprised when they bail on you and go somewhere else.
It's pretty obvious what MS is doing. They're killing all Mac software development THAT DOESN'T EARN THEM ANY MONEY.
Mac IE and WiMP were both freeware that did nothing to increase sales of other MS products (unlike for example RDC, which by definition requires Windows).
Ergo, Office is safe as houses (as promised at MWX), whereas Messenger could be next to die.
If you're considering an MP4 codec, you should also use the generic MP4 file format, which is similar but not identical to Apple's MOV format. Compliant MP4 strikes the best balance of cross-compatibility and compression/quality; they're supported out-of-the-box by nearly every recognized major media player (QT, Real, Xine, etc). The one notable exception is WiMP, which intentionally omits MP4 capability to promote lock-in, and requires 3rd party plugins.
"Thanks for your interest! We don't have a ship date for this yet, or even a beta testing program, but we're hard at work on it and have a working prototype."
I also emailed Transgaming about Cedega, but so far they still have nothing useful to say.
No, apparently it's not. CSS patches have been tried, and for some reason it doesn't work right for the attachment pane. See the following bugs for details (copy link to a new tab, slashdot referrer is blocked):
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=223340
bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=242531
If you can find a css tweak that works, please submit a patch.
Actually yes. bstadil's GP post was talking about large groups of human beings, who exhibit normal distribution under most circumstances and do not "go to infinity".
...why play Monopoly on a square of cardboard for $30, when you can play it on a touch-sensitive flatscreen with surround sound for the low low price of $3000?
This article isn't anything like the one that I submitted.
2006-01-03 17:15:05 No Microsoft WMF update until next week (Index,Windows) (accepted)
Mine looked more like this (body content from memory):
" The usual suspects are reporting Microsoft's latest announcement about the WMF vulnerability (link to previous/. article). To quote (link to MS technet article): "Microsoft's goal is to release the update on Tuesday, January 10, 2006, as part of its monthly release of security bulletins." So do you install the unofficial patch (link to previous/. article), or cross your fingers for a week?"
what if the trustworthy compontent itself was exploited?
There's no "if" about it. The vulnerable component is a genuine Microsoft DLL, shipped as part of Windows, intended to render an official Windows file format. If you were running a "Trusted"(tm) PC, this DLL would 0WNZ0R you with no way out.
vanishingly small number of shows (Boston Legal, NCIS, CSI, 24)
This phrase "vanishingly small", I do not think it means what you think it means. CSI is on air something like 3 hours every day, and you're also watching a CSI clone...
How about only blocking specific IPs that cause spam instead of blocking entire ranges?
SPEWS (et al) does that. They start with pinpoint blocking, and contact the offending ISP. If no removal occurs, the block expands. It's up to the ISP.
How about creating a kind of organisation that is transparant enough so it can be held accountable for its actions?
You're looking for Spamhaus (et al). Nice folks, they're in the building next to that houseboat across the bridge.
people who proclaim it to be the ultimate solution to killing spam
Nope. SPEWS is quite mediocre for blocking spam. But when used properly, it can get results (aka ISP shunning of spammers) in many situations when nothing else has worked.
Quick refresher course in web history: 5 years down the road, Mac IE is outdated and in desperate need of retirement. But back in 2000, Mac IE5 was far and away the most standards compliant browser available. It had little or nothing to do with Win IE, except that IE6 was later based on Mac IE's rendering engine. It did not support ActiveX, and has no higher security risk than anything from Mozilla and pals.
Content providers already do have several options to enforce precise style and layout. Here are a few of them that you might know: SWF, PDF, JPG, etc. Just present ALL of your content in these formats, and what you see is what your viewers will get.
Or you could accept the intentional features (which are indeed features, NOT limitations) of HTML and quit thinking like a print designer. Either way.
Well, except that CS Lewis himself viewed the Narnia stories as a parallel universe version of Christianity. The best explanation I've read is For Dummies (no allegory intended).
'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?'
The CG characters didn't bother me, even the beavers, but numerous backdrops (IMO one of the icy river shots was the worst) were painfully obviously greenscreened. Whatever camera crew and SFX team handled them should be fired. Camera focus was sharp on both foreground actors and deep field, but fuzzy in between. Parallax movements sometimes didn't line up correctly. Halo aliasing around parts of some actors. I wouldn't be surprised if there were shadows in different directions. And a complete failure to blend background environmentals (temperature, wind, mist or spray, etc) into the foreground.
I'd say the most plausible explanation in this case is a COMBINATION of malice and incompetence. SunnComm intentionally (aka maliciously) designed their DRM software so that they could remotely (and secretly) install later updates onto victims' PCs. This "feature" was supposed to be used only by SunnComm, and (if we apply the Principle of Charity) only to adjust their own DRM stuff. However, the incompetence part kicked in, and the actual software allows any black hat to 0WNZ0R infected PCs.
The same type of flaw affected several versions of Gator, Brilliant Digital, and other spyware in the past.
Flatly false. First off, we're talking about a homebrew cyclotron built by an amateur (civil engineering is not the right specialty). It might spew beta and x-rays around the full circle if it's improperly designed, built, or operated.
Second, even a perfectly designed cyclotron will emit cyclotron radiation by definition. It's a required side effect of turning the beam.
...then don't build a GPL house. Likewise, no one is forcing you to build web services with GPL code.
This is exactly the debate. Should a host be considered a distributor? Should a visitor be considered a user? If so, the GPL entitles them to source access. I would say yes, you would say no. It isn't specified in GPL v2, but it will be in GPL v3, one way or the other.
RTFA. The question was: "why can't Microsoft -- with its massive army of programmers and massive budget -- patch all of its vulnerabilities?"
Microsoft has $49 billion in the bank and about ten thousand paid staff programmers.
Tell you what, you donate a measly 0.1% of that ($49 million and 10 brilliant developers) to the Mozilla Foundation, and I guarantee that they will get a gorgeously patched Firefox 1.6 (or 2.0) out the door by summer.
No, that doesn't cut it. Any time any major OS has a remote "arbitrary code execution" vulnerability (and privilege escalation too), that is by definition a critical problem. In this case, the haters are absolutely right: Mac users will probably get away unscathed because we aren't a big enough target for crackers to write a 0-day exploit. If more bad guys knew how to code for OSX, a lot of iMacs would be toast right now.
I'm definitely disappointed with Apple's dev team. They should have caught these things long ago.
Slashdot Mirror
But the gripping hand is that search engines (or other link aggregators) are the vastly predominant reason why users are on a site in the first place. It's been that way forever. Back in the stone age mid-90s, the single most important absolute number one web site (and home page of most, including me) was http://akebono.stanford.edu/ and although the URL has since changed, the principle remains true. Anyone who has worked on the web in the past decade should have known this fact already, and designed their site accordingly.
I often appreciate Neilsen's essays, but this one is just absurd whining.Google also offers methods to allow searching BUT NOT CACHING of your site.
And if you REALLY don't want deep linking, you can easily use referrer checking to force visitors to use your entry page and browse your content the long way. Just don't be surprised when they bail on you and go somewhere else.
It's pretty obvious what MS is doing. They're killing all Mac software development THAT DOESN'T EARN THEM ANY MONEY.
Mac IE and WiMP were both freeware that did nothing to increase sales of other MS products (unlike for example RDC, which by definition requires Windows).
Ergo, Office is safe as houses (as promised at MWX), whereas Messenger could be next to die.
If you're considering an MP4 codec, you should also use the generic MP4 file format, which is similar but not identical to Apple's MOV format. Compliant MP4 strikes the best balance of cross-compatibility and compression/quality; they're supported out-of-the-box by nearly every recognized major media player (QT, Real, Xine, etc). The one notable exception is WiMP, which intentionally omits MP4 capability to promote lock-in, and requires 3rd party plugins.
- Macintels are mammals.
- Macintels have low power Yonah CPUs all the time.
- The purpose of the Macintel is to be insanely great AND stealthy quiet.
You better get a life right now or they will replace you with a tiny Perl script!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.I also emailed Transgaming about Cedega, but so far they still have nothing useful to say.
No, apparently it's not. CSS patches have been tried, and for some reason it doesn't work right for the attachment pane. See the following bugs for details (copy link to a new tab, slashdot referrer is blocked):
If you can find a css tweak that works, please submit a patch.
Actually yes. bstadil's GP post was talking about large groups of human beings, who exhibit normal distribution under most circumstances and do not "go to infinity".
...from the truly foreign languages of SMS, TXT, or 1337? RUOK? TTYL!
...why play Monopoly on a square of cardboard for $30, when you can play it on a touch-sensitive flatscreen with surround sound for the low low price of $3000?
This article isn't anything like the one that I submitted.
Mine looked more like this (body content from memory):
There's no "if" about it. The vulnerable component is a genuine Microsoft DLL, shipped as part of Windows, intended to render an official Windows file format. If you were running a "Trusted"(tm) PC, this DLL would 0WNZ0R you with no way out.
This phrase "vanishingly small", I do not think it means what you think it means. CSI is on air something like 3 hours every day, and you're also watching a CSI clone...
SPEWS (et al) does that. They start with pinpoint blocking, and contact the offending ISP. If no removal occurs, the block expands. It's up to the ISP.
How about creating a kind of organisation that is transparant enough so it can be held accountable for its actions?You're looking for Spamhaus (et al). Nice folks, they're in the building next to that houseboat across the bridge.
people who proclaim it to be the ultimate solution to killing spamNope. SPEWS is quite mediocre for blocking spam. But when used properly, it can get results (aka ISP shunning of spammers) in many situations when nothing else has worked.
Quick refresher course in web history: 5 years down the road, Mac IE is outdated and in desperate need of retirement. But back in 2000, Mac IE5 was far and away the most standards compliant browser available. It had little or nothing to do with Win IE, except that IE6 was later based on Mac IE's rendering engine. It did not support ActiveX, and has no higher security risk than anything from Mozilla and pals.
Sheesh, the very latest article for Jebus' sake!
Content providers already do have several options to enforce precise style and layout. Here are a few of them that you might know: SWF, PDF, JPG, etc. Just present ALL of your content in these formats, and what you see is what your viewers will get.
Or you could accept the intentional features (which are indeed features, NOT limitations) of HTML and quit thinking like a print designer. Either way.
The CG characters didn't bother me, even the beavers, but numerous backdrops (IMO one of the icy river shots was the worst) were painfully obviously greenscreened. Whatever camera crew and SFX team handled them should be fired. Camera focus was sharp on both foreground actors and deep field, but fuzzy in between. Parallax movements sometimes didn't line up correctly. Halo aliasing around parts of some actors. I wouldn't be surprised if there were shadows in different directions. And a complete failure to blend background environmentals (temperature, wind, mist or spray, etc) into the foreground.
they knew what they were doing when they wrote it
I'd say the most plausible explanation in this case is a COMBINATION of malice and incompetence. SunnComm intentionally (aka maliciously) designed their DRM software so that they could remotely (and secretly) install later updates onto victims' PCs. This "feature" was supposed to be used only by SunnComm, and (if we apply the Principle of Charity) only to adjust their own DRM stuff. However, the incompetence part kicked in, and the actual software allows any black hat to 0WNZ0R infected PCs.
The same type of flaw affected several versions of Gator, Brilliant Digital, and other spyware in the past.
Flatly false. First off, we're talking about a homebrew cyclotron built by an amateur (civil engineering is not the right specialty). It might spew beta and x-rays around the full circle if it's improperly designed, built, or operated.
Second, even a perfectly designed cyclotron will emit cyclotron radiation by definition. It's a required side effect of turning the beam.
...then don't build a GPL house. Likewise, no one is forcing you to build web services with GPL code.
This is exactly the debate. Should a host be considered a distributor? Should a visitor be considered a user? If so, the GPL entitles them to source access. I would say yes, you would say no. It isn't specified in GPL v2, but it will be in GPL v3, one way or the other.Well guess what, your house wasn't built under a GPL license.
But if there WERE such things, then visitors should be allowed to copy the blueprints.
RTFA. The question was: "why can't Microsoft -- with its massive army of programmers and massive budget -- patch all of its vulnerabilities?"
Microsoft has $49 billion in the bank and about ten thousand paid staff programmers.
Tell you what, you donate a measly 0.1% of that ($49 million and 10 brilliant developers) to the Mozilla Foundation, and I guarantee that they will get a gorgeously patched Firefox 1.6 (or 2.0) out the door by summer.
No, that doesn't cut it. Any time any major OS has a remote "arbitrary code execution" vulnerability (and privilege escalation too), that is by definition a critical problem. In this case, the haters are absolutely right: Mac users will probably get away unscathed because we aren't a big enough target for crackers to write a 0-day exploit. If more bad guys knew how to code for OSX, a lot of iMacs would be toast right now.
I'm definitely disappointed with Apple's dev team. They should have caught these things long ago.