Add firefox has an issue where an element with a margin contained in another element will use it's margin to space it away from any content outside of the container, and ignore the container, unless the container has a border or some combination there of. I reworked the section instead of trying to figure out the exact cause, but it only exhibited this problem in firefox, including 18.0.2.
I hate them all. Every browser out there either doesn't implement everything they should, or does so with bugs. Firefox - Didn't support text-overflow until very recently. Of course most browsers still have issues with implementing it as per W3C draft that supports multiple lines. Improper calc() implementation, for example, 50%-30px fails and calculates to 20%, even when 1%!=1px. Safari - Has issues with table layouts that may collapse to 0 width. Issues with column layouts. Chrome - Too numerous to list. Issues with column layouts. Usually the same bugs as Safari plus some of it's own. IE 6/7/8 - Way too many to list -- use now serve these browsers chrome frame, which has most of the Chrome bugs plus a few others, including unable to render things to print media in any reasonable way. IE 9 - Lacks many CSS3 things that we use, column layout, text-shadow. IE 10 - The only browser to support column-layouts correctly, but has transition bugs with transitioning elements with box-shadows. Opera we don't even test with, we tried, but there were so many apparent issues that we gave up even trying to fix them since it has such low usage.
You can easily run a windows VM on a machine with 1GB of Ram. I can run a windows VM on a Windows host with half that, and I suspect I could do it on a machine with 384MB or less, but I haven't tried.
That graph doesn't agree with what you said. Our all time high was in 1944 (94%), and we haven't been anywhere near that in a very long time. We're currently at 33%, which is a huge difference, although that is only tracking the very top tier of income tax. Also, that graph isn't very useful. If we added a new tax tier that said anyone making more than 1 trillion dollars a year would get taxed at 94%, the graph would show 94% at the highest tier, but no one would ever be in that tax bracket, so that number is useless.
Then use of the many battery extenders which double or more the battery life of your phone, or use one of the portable battery rechargers, which isn't much larger than the battery itself.
So it really begs the question, why am I not allowed to openly discuss my salary information
Because if everyone discusses their salary information, then there is 1 person who is happy, and N-1 people are that are unhappy, and demand they make the same as the 1. Eventually this leads a company to institute a policy that everyone makes (nearly) the same amount, and that limits their ability to hire and retain exceptional employees who can find better pay elsewhere as everyone's salary gravitates towards the average. Eventually all that will remain at the company are employees that are below average that make average salary, or everyone is making salary above their worth and the company is no longer able to compete price wise.
Yes it does. The "It's ironic" at the beginning of the quote ties the two statements together as if they are comparing to nearly identical situations. The first sentence is talking about how back when Apple was hurting and about to go out of business, Microsoft saved them by porting office to their platform. The second sentence now has to be ironic is some sense as it relates to the first. The implication is that the roles are now reversed and Apple has taken a completely different stance from what Microsoft did in the opposite situation, making it an ironic.
We (citizens of the US) don't vote for those in the department of justice (DoJ), and they don't have a customer support office, nor should they. He might have a better chance writing his state representative. They typically have a larger staff, they are supposed to be a representative of their citizens, are voted into office, and as they are technically part of the legislative branch of government, are supposed to oversee the judicial branch that the DoJ is in. Which coincidentally is in the US is about as close to your MP as we get.
If they've already done the investigation, they should include the findings
That is what they did.
I received a generic reply about how Microsoft was not in violation of anything.
They didn't say they weren't interested in reviewing the situation. They said they did review it and found they were not in violation of any current laws. Other than going into each law (or supposed law) the writer mentioned and demonstrating why it wasn't an actual breach, I don't see how this could get any clearer. If writer really wanted to know the ins and outs and have a discussion about it point for point, he should seek legal council. He doesn't seem to be interested in that, and I'm not interested in hiring a team of lawyers to explain he doesn't understand law.
It is not the DOJ's mandate to educate the public on law. It's to find and make sure laws aren't being broken, and when they are to bring a case to trial. It would be better for Mr. Fretts to consult with an attorney FIRST.
If he wants to find out why he is wrong, perhaps he should be consulting with a lawyer. No offense, but I don't want to pay for a DOJ that staffs an extra 2,000 people just so that they can read every piece of email that comes in, and respond back with a detailed analysis of all the legal mistakes made.
They are doing exactly what they should be doing. They group up emails that pertains to specific subjects then determine which ones they need to look into based on the number of people affected, the seriousness of the accusations, and the realistic ability to make a case. Apparently in this case, the DOJ has already looked at the issue, from some of the most informed lawyers in the country and have determined that they haven't violated any laws. Along comes Mr. Anonymous, and writes a big ass letter. Do they really need to read every point he tried to make when it most likely boils down to one legal mistake after another?
I haven't read Mr. Fretts letter, but I can only imagine it goes something like: Dear DOJ,
Microsoft is evil and they broke a bunch of laws including the Sherman one. As you well know, they don't have anyone named Sherman, so they are in clear violation and need to be fined, disbanded, all their source code made public domain, and all assets sold off and dived up between all the people running linux because I'm butt hurt. {insert 3 more pages about there being no one named Sherman} Thank you, Mr. Fretts.
My guess would be that the DOJ has already thoroughly investigated secure boot, and hence they didn't really need to read your arguments in detail in order to determine where you are wrong. It wouldn't take more than a few seconds to scan your email and see that you were complaining about Microsoft and secure boot and throw it away.
They're going to need immigrants desperately, though, because they have a demographic imbalance that's going to leave them with too few young people to maintain things and care for all the retiring boomers.
That's what the Mexicans are for. Not only do they immigrate, but they have much larger than average families, creating a whole new generation of citizens.
In the US, the first "official" year of school is kindergarten (k), while all subsequent years are numbered. 1st Grade, 2nd Grade, leading up until high school, which is 9th - 12th Grade. You then go on to a college (hopefully). I must say, I'm not sure why they are called that, and why kindergarten isn't either called first grade, or 0th Grade, but that is how it is. Many kids now go to what is called Pre-School, Pre-K, or nursery school as well, but it's not manditory. It's more like baby sitting for families with two working parents with some minor social skills built in sometimes.
You don't notice it on skype much, but in the case that both the sender and receiver are both behind non-UPnP NAT routers, then your entire conversation gets sent to a node somewhere on the network. That node could be Mr Joe badguy who likes to listen in to people's skype calls (Not hard to do). I know sending files didn't used to work at all, but they might have fixed that in the past couple of years, I really didn't keep up on the changes skype made. In any case, not only does it send packets to a 3rd party that could be intercepted easily (transparently), but it also adds latency to the call that isn't necessary.
Contrast this to if both of you are either on an un-NATed machine, or are running UPnP on the NATing device, then your packets are sent directly to the end user (hopping across the normal routers between you -- so the packets may still interceptable, but much harder to do and isn't likely to happen on any large scale).
If one of you is NATed (with no UPnP), but the other isn't then one part of the transmission may go through a 3rd party, or if using TCP, it's possible to use the connection back channel to route the packets directly. UDP can cause cause additional problems as it's a connection-less protocol and many/some routers may not allow receiving UDP at all (no back channel) if your are NATed without UPnP, which again adds latency.
Also in addition to routing through a 3rd party, your connection bandwidth is then limited by the 3rd parties bandwidth as well as your own. Slower file transfers, switching to a lower quality codec, garbled/freezing video, etc etc. In many cases the 3rd party may actually be one of Microsoft's servers since they run supernodes to try and handle some of the required bandwidth if possible.
And... They are still right. Particularly adolf's analysis is pretty much spot on. I didn't bother to read the rest.
If you are scared that you might get some malware on a device located behind your router, you've already lost the game. The malware could have already grabbed all your important stuff and posted it to an overseas website. Do you also have key locks on the INSIDE of the doors that lead out of your house? I mean what if a burglar snuck into your house somehow, now they would be able to unlock the door to allow "anyone" inside. Pretty much the same thing.
That said, I'm sure there are bad implementations of UPnP out there. Stuff they shouldn't let happen, like letting device A open ports to device B. Obviously that's a major flaw in the implementation because then any compromised device could intentionally expose any other device directly to the internet, but even that is paranoia, as the malware could just set up a tunnel to that device from the internet through an outbound connection that it started.
The additional security afforded by turning off UPnP in any decent implementation of it affords you very little security, and almost anything that could happen via the exploit could also happen with out it using a different malware implementation.
If you see something wrong with the logic in this, I'd sure like to hear it, but please, if you aren't a networking expert and especially if you don't understand security, please don't bother replying. I'm not interested in teaching people how networking works, nor do I want to dumb down the networking analogies into car speak for the mechanic who has a computer friend who told him otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Add firefox has an issue where an element with a margin contained in another element will use it's margin to space it away from any content outside of the container, and ignore the container, unless the container has a border or some combination there of. I reworked the section instead of trying to figure out the exact cause, but it only exhibited this problem in firefox, including 18.0.2.
I hate them all. Every browser out there either doesn't implement everything they should, or does so with bugs.
Firefox - Didn't support text-overflow until very recently. Of course most browsers still have issues with implementing it as per W3C draft that supports multiple lines. Improper calc() implementation, for example, 50%-30px fails and calculates to 20%, even when 1%!=1px.
Safari - Has issues with table layouts that may collapse to 0 width. Issues with column layouts.
Chrome - Too numerous to list. Issues with column layouts. Usually the same bugs as Safari plus some of it's own.
IE 6/7/8 - Way too many to list -- use now serve these browsers chrome frame, which has most of the Chrome bugs plus a few others, including unable to render things to print media in any reasonable way.
IE 9 - Lacks many CSS3 things that we use, column layout, text-shadow.
IE 10 - The only browser to support column-layouts correctly, but has transition bugs with transitioning elements with box-shadows.
Opera we don't even test with, we tried, but there were so many apparent issues that we gave up even trying to fix them since it has such low usage.
You can easily run a windows VM on a machine with 1GB of Ram. I can run a windows VM on a Windows host with half that, and I suspect I could do it on a machine with 384MB or less, but I haven't tried.
Lol, I got distracted by the pretty chart, my bad.
That graph doesn't agree with what you said. Our all time high was in 1944 (94%), and we haven't been anywhere near that in a very long time. We're currently at 33%, which is a huge difference, although that is only tracking the very top tier of income tax. Also, that graph isn't very useful. If we added a new tax tier that said anyone making more than 1 trillion dollars a year would get taxed at 94%, the graph would show 94% at the highest tier, but no one would ever be in that tax bracket, so that number is useless.
But not for RAID-6. Even multiport SATA controllers are fairly expensive, especially if you want to hook up an external enclosure at any decent speed.
Then use of the many battery extenders which double or more the battery life of your phone, or use one of the portable battery rechargers, which isn't much larger than the battery itself.
Like one of these rechargers: http://www.charmofdresden.com/techcandy-batteryextender.html?productid=techcandy-batteryextender&channelid=FROOG
Or one of these extenders: http://www.wirelessground.com/iphone-4-battery-extender-case.html?utm_source=iphone-4-battery-extender-case&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=googleproducts&gclid=CNnrweviqrUCFag7MgodQTkAcQ
Hmmm.. Cost me $8 for 2 lightning cables.
Last night.
So it really begs the question, why am I not allowed to openly discuss my salary information
Because if everyone discusses their salary information, then there is 1 person who is happy, and N-1 people are that are unhappy, and demand they make the same as the 1. Eventually this leads a company to institute a policy that everyone makes (nearly) the same amount, and that limits their ability to hire and retain exceptional employees who can find better pay elsewhere as everyone's salary gravitates towards the average. Eventually all that will remain at the company are employees that are below average that make average salary, or everyone is making salary above their worth and the company is no longer able to compete price wise.
Ok, send your cheque to the EFF. Problem solved.
Microsoft Word was ported to mac from DOS which was ported from xenix after a name change. Excel was ported to Windows from the Mac.
I have no idea on the history of Powerpoint, rarely use it myself and could really care less.
$5 for a 30-second edit button. Anyhow, "comparing two nearly"...
Yes it does. The "It's ironic" at the beginning of the quote ties the two statements together as if they are comparing to nearly identical situations. The first sentence is talking about how back when Apple was hurting and about to go out of business, Microsoft saved them by porting office to their platform. The second sentence now has to be ironic is some sense as it relates to the first. The implication is that the roles are now reversed and Apple has taken a completely different stance from what Microsoft did in the opposite situation, making it an ironic.
We (citizens of the US) don't vote for those in the department of justice (DoJ), and they don't have a customer support office, nor should they. He might have a better chance writing his state representative. They typically have a larger staff, they are supposed to be a representative of their citizens, are voted into office, and as they are technically part of the legislative branch of government, are supposed to oversee the judicial branch that the DoJ is in. Which coincidentally is in the US is about as close to your MP as we get.
If they've already done the investigation, they should include the findings
That is what they did.
I received a generic reply about how Microsoft was not in violation of anything.
They didn't say they weren't interested in reviewing the situation. They said they did review it and found they were not in violation of any current laws. Other than going into each law (or supposed law) the writer mentioned and demonstrating why it wasn't an actual breach, I don't see how this could get any clearer. If writer really wanted to know the ins and outs and have a discussion about it point for point, he should seek legal council. He doesn't seem to be interested in that, and I'm not interested in hiring a team of lawyers to explain he doesn't understand law.
It is not the DOJ's mandate to educate the public on law. It's to find and make sure laws aren't being broken, and when they are to bring a case to trial. It would be better for Mr. Fretts to consult with an attorney FIRST.
If he wants to find out why he is wrong, perhaps he should be consulting with a lawyer. No offense, but I don't want to pay for a DOJ that staffs an extra 2,000 people just so that they can read every piece of email that comes in, and respond back with a detailed analysis of all the legal mistakes made.
They are doing exactly what they should be doing. They group up emails that pertains to specific subjects then determine which ones they need to look into based on the number of people affected, the seriousness of the accusations, and the realistic ability to make a case. Apparently in this case, the DOJ has already looked at the issue, from some of the most informed lawyers in the country and have determined that they haven't violated any laws. Along comes Mr. Anonymous, and writes a big ass letter. Do they really need to read every point he tried to make when it most likely boils down to one legal mistake after another?
I haven't read Mr. Fretts letter, but I can only imagine it goes something like:
Dear DOJ,
Microsoft is evil and they broke a bunch of laws including the Sherman one. As you well know, they don't have anyone named Sherman, so they are in clear violation and need to be fined, disbanded, all their source code made public domain, and all assets sold off and dived up between all the people running linux because I'm butt hurt.
{insert 3 more pages about there being no one named Sherman}
Thank you,
Mr. Fretts.
My guess would be that the DOJ has already thoroughly investigated secure boot, and hence they didn't really need to read your arguments in detail in order to determine where you are wrong. It wouldn't take more than a few seconds to scan your email and see that you were complaining about Microsoft and secure boot and throw it away.
Re family size, this used to be true, but no longer. Mexican women in Mexico are down to 2.1 children per, and 2.4 per in the US.
I'll save you the trouble. It's 1.8.
Caucasian 1.8
Asian 1.8
Black 2.1
Hispanic 2.4
Hispanics in the US still have the largest average family size of all ethnic groups. At least as of 2010.
And what is the rate of birth for Caucasian women in the US?
As a US citizen, I can tell you that we have no abundance of beautiful women. The rest of the world has an equal share from every country out there.
They're going to need immigrants desperately, though, because they have a demographic imbalance that's going to leave them with too few young people to maintain things and care for all the retiring boomers.
That's what the Mexicans are for. Not only do they immigrate, but they have much larger than average families, creating a whole new generation of citizens.
In the US, the first "official" year of school is kindergarten (k), while all subsequent years are numbered. 1st Grade, 2nd Grade, leading up until high school, which is 9th - 12th Grade. You then go on to a college (hopefully). I must say, I'm not sure why they are called that, and why kindergarten isn't either called first grade, or 0th Grade, but that is how it is. Many kids now go to what is called Pre-School, Pre-K, or nursery school as well, but it's not manditory. It's more like baby sitting for families with two working parents with some minor social skills built in sometimes.
You don't notice it on skype much, but in the case that both the sender and receiver are both behind non-UPnP NAT routers, then your entire conversation gets sent to a node somewhere on the network. That node could be Mr Joe badguy who likes to listen in to people's skype calls (Not hard to do). I know sending files didn't used to work at all, but they might have fixed that in the past couple of years, I really didn't keep up on the changes skype made. In any case, not only does it send packets to a 3rd party that could be intercepted easily (transparently), but it also adds latency to the call that isn't necessary.
Contrast this to if both of you are either on an un-NATed machine, or are running UPnP on the NATing device, then your packets are sent directly to the end user (hopping across the normal routers between you -- so the packets may still interceptable, but much harder to do and isn't likely to happen on any large scale).
If one of you is NATed (with no UPnP), but the other isn't then one part of the transmission may go through a 3rd party, or if using TCP, it's possible to use the connection back channel to route the packets directly. UDP can cause cause additional problems as it's a connection-less protocol and many/some routers may not allow receiving UDP at all (no back channel) if your are NATed without UPnP, which again adds latency.
Also in addition to routing through a 3rd party, your connection bandwidth is then limited by the 3rd parties bandwidth as well as your own. Slower file transfers, switching to a lower quality codec, garbled/freezing video, etc etc. In many cases the 3rd party may actually be one of Microsoft's servers since they run supernodes to try and handle some of the required bandwidth if possible.
And... They are still right. Particularly adolf's analysis is pretty much spot on. I didn't bother to read the rest.
If you are scared that you might get some malware on a device located behind your router, you've already lost the game. The malware could have already grabbed all your important stuff and posted it to an overseas website. Do you also have key locks on the INSIDE of the doors that lead out of your house? I mean what if a burglar snuck into your house somehow, now they would be able to unlock the door to allow "anyone" inside. Pretty much the same thing.
That said, I'm sure there are bad implementations of UPnP out there. Stuff they shouldn't let happen, like letting device A open ports to device B. Obviously that's a major flaw in the implementation because then any compromised device could intentionally expose any other device directly to the internet, but even that is paranoia, as the malware could just set up a tunnel to that device from the internet through an outbound connection that it started.
The additional security afforded by turning off UPnP in any decent implementation of it affords you very little security, and almost anything that could happen via the exploit could also happen with out it using a different malware implementation.
If you see something wrong with the logic in this, I'd sure like to hear it, but please, if you aren't a networking expert and especially if you don't understand security, please don't bother replying. I'm not interested in teaching people how networking works, nor do I want to dumb down the networking analogies into car speak for the mechanic who has a computer friend who told him otherwise.