Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Simple HTML confounds NASA rocket scientists (Score 1) 100

NASA may understand things related to aeronautics and space, but, sadly, they sure as heck don't understand HTML very well:

    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...

and:

    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...

and:

    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...

Ummm... Houston? We have a problem here!

The "width" and "height" attributes of the HTML "img" tag *DOES NOT CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE FILE*. It only changes the how that (image) FILE is /rendered/ on the screen.

The entire 2.31 MB (9.4 x 6.3 inches (23.8 x 15.9 cm) 2250 x 1500 Pixel), 1.57 MB (5.8 x 8.1 inches (14.8 x 20.6 cm) 1400 x 1942 Pixel), and 2.01 MB (8.8 x 5.8 inches (22.3 x 14.8 cm) 2104 x 1400 Pixel) files will /still/ be downloaded whenever the page is displayed.

They'll just get squeezed into a tiny 120 x 90 pixel area on the page, which sort of renders moot the whole point of providing thumbnails, doesn't it?

What /should/ be, at most, a several kilobyte web page is, thanks to the rocket scientist that wrote your page's HTML code, is now a 5.9+ MEGABYTE web page, that even with high speed DSL /does/ take a while to load.

I've seen this mistake made far too many times by amateur web authors. You'd think the folks at NASA would be smart enough to get it right.

I mean this isn't exactly rocket science we're talking about here!

But then maybe that's the problem? They only understand rocket science, so anything that /isn't/ rocket science completely baffles them??

Makes you wonder sometimes....

Comment This happened to me too (Score 1) 511

Well, almost.

I didn't so much have my ATM Debit Card card stolen as I did my identity.

What they (the criminals) actually did was electronically "skim" my card, thereby obtaining not only all of my bank account information (account number, etc -- all the stuff recorded on the magnetic strip of the card) but also my pin number. (Their keypad where you enter you pin number into was connected to another box that saved the two pieces of information together so they has everything they needed to clone and use the card).

We noticed it on the next bank statement. There were transactions for places in California and we live in Seattle, WA and we don't travel.

The next day I went to the bank to deposit a check and asked the teller what I should do. She immediately asked me whether I happened to make any purchases recently at the store across the street. Surprised that she would know I answered yes. She then told me the cops has just arrested the owner for fraud/identity theft. Apparently there were many dozens of victims, all in this area and many of them also customers of the same bank as mine (Bank of America).

Long story short, the bank refunded the entire amount (over $900) while the investigation was underway since it was likely the investigation would complete in my favor (and since they obviously had the resources to recover their losses better than I did to cover mine).

I'm surprised your bank isn't handling the situation similarly, unless your card was indeed stolen and not simply used as part of a much larger across-state-lines wide-spread identity theft ring (which the feds (FBI) took over investigating/prosecuting).

Comment The EASIEST way to see the experts-exchange answer (Score 1) 202

Half the people I heard from said that if they scroll all the way to the bottom they can read the answers for free, and the other half say this doesn't work. This confused me for the longest time until I finally figured out the answer.

Expertsexchange allows you to scroll down to the bottom to get a free answer the first time you visit their page, then gives your browser a cookie saying that you have gotten your free answer, and won't show you any more. So if you want to ensure that you can always scroll to the bottom, you simply have to block cookies from them and you are good to go.

A much easier (and faster too!) way to see the answer for free every time is to simply click the Google's "Cached" link and then scroll to the bottom.

No need to mess with blocking of cookies or any other crap.

Works every time.

Comment Which one? (Score 1) 346

You're not tied into Google in any way and can easily block them for good by pointing their domain to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file.

Which one?

They and other large name-brand high-tech companies have so freaking many it's impossible to truly block them all.

This is a serious problem for the complete opposite reason however: identifying which domains you wish to allow rather than block. I have my browser security set rather high (and use a custom filtering proxy as well) that prevents e.g. javascript from running anywhere except for those sites I choose trust. All other sites are blocked.

Simply allowing "primary-domain-name.com" doesn't cut it, since primary-domain-name.com uses javascript served by secondary-domain-name.com as well as other-owned-domain-names-you-never-knew-about-and-have-no-way-of-learning-about.com too.

As I said it' a problem, and to the best of my knowledge not one that's easily solvable.

Comment Re:re Increase or decline? (Score 1) 746

It's amazing how much misinformation is being spread on this subject.

(Or rather I should say it's amazing how well the average citizen is being brainwashed into believing the current political agenda on the issue.)

The issue is NOT whether the globe is getting warmer or not, but whether manmade CO2 is the CAUSE of it. The controversy is NOT whether the climate is changing, but whether humans are driving climate change.

The planet IS getting warmer. There is no controversy over that.

The climate IS changing. There is no controversy over that.

That humans are causing the global climate change IS the controversy.

That manmade CO2 is responsible for global warming IS the controversy.

Available evidence does NOT support the claim that man is responsible for global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are indeed increasing, but available evidence does NOT support the claim that manmade (human produced) CO2 emissions the driving cause of global climate change.

To believe otherwise is to buy into the current propaganda.

It's all political and it's all complete bullshit.

Comment Re:On behalf of arizona... (Score 2, Interesting) 624

Please get some reality

Physician, heal thyself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Hint: Gun control actually increases violent crime. When there are more guns in the hands of citizens violent crime decreases.

It's counter-intuitive I know, but there you have it. <shrug>

Comment Re:No - there are plenty of safer alternatives (Score 1) 486

Mod parent up!

So very many programmers tend to forget that strncpy DOES NOT ALWAYS NULL TERMINATE!

The only time it does is when the source data is shorter than the destination buffer. If the source string is longer than the destination buffer however, then the end result is the string is NOT null terminated, thereby leading to Bad Things(tm) happening whenever some other code does a strlen on the result (or worse, uses the return value from strlen(result) to determine how much data needs to be memcpy'ed somewhere).

strncpy is bad.

Use strlcpy (BSD) or MS's strcpy_s instead.

Comment "Legal issues" (Score 1) 274

"But there are "legal issues" that need to be resolved before this "telephonic neighbourhood watch" can be put into action, said a spokesman for the company."

Yeah, like maybe admitting that your new "invention" that "basically intercepts all calls" has already been invented by someone else here in the states. Someone called Verizon. They've been offering their "Call Intercept" calling feature for quite a few years now:

CALL INTERCEPT

Screen calls - even from anonymous callers.

Call Intercept screens unidentified calls and lets you handle them however you like. Fewer unwanted calls means more peace and quiet for you at home.

How Call Intercept Works

    * This automated service works with Caller ID service.

    * Unidentified callers that typically show up as "Anonymous," "Out of Area," "Private" or "Unavailable" on your Caller ID display are prompted to record their identity before your phone rings.*

    * Once the caller records his or her identity, the service alerts you with a unique ring and displays "Call Intercept" on your Caller ID unit.

    * When you pick up the phone, Call Intercept plays the recording and then gives you several options for handling the call.

Additional Benefits

    * Unidentified callers who don't record their name hear a pre-recorded message stating that you do not accept unidentified calls, and then are disconnected.

    * Use of a four-digit Personal Identification Number (PIN) that you choose allows friends and family to bypass the screening process. When Call Intercept is bypassed using the PIN, you hear a unique ring and "Priority Call" appears on the Caller ID display.

    * If no one answers, Call Intercept will allow the caller to leave a message on your answering machine or Home Voice Mail service.

    * You have the ability to change your four-digit Personal Identification Number (PIN) and to turn Call Intercept on and off. Simply dial 1 800 527 7070 and follow the voice prompts.

Source:

    http://tinyurl.com/5qprsu (web page)

or:

    http://tinyurl.com/5qprsu (PDF)

Slashdot Top Deals

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa

Working...